DOCUMENT RESUME ED 111 739 Contreras, Gloria · 2014. 1. 27. · DOCUMENT RESUME ED 111 739 SO 008 592 AUTHOR Contreras, Gloria TITLE Mastery Learning; The Relation of D"fferent,Criterion

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 111 739 SO 008 592

AUTHOR Contreras, GloriaTITLE Mastery Learning; The Relation of D"fferent,Criterion

Levels and Aptitude to Achievement, Retention, andAttitude in a Seventh Grade Geography. Unit.

PUB DATE 75 -

NOTE 0 230p.; Ed. D. Dissertation, University of Georgia'AVAILABLE FROM Geography Curriculum Project, 107 Dudley Hall,

University of Georgia; Athens, Georgia 30601($5.00)

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.76 HC-$12.05 Plus PostageDESCRIPTORS *Academic Achievement; Achievement Rating; Doctoral

Theseip; Educational Research; Geography; *GeographyInstruction; Knowledge Level; *Learning; Low AbilityStudents; *Retention Studies; Secondary Education;"*Student Attitudes; Student Improvement

IDENTIFIERS ,Geography Curriculum Project; Mastery Learning

ABSTRACTThis study is an assessment of the effect of three,

criterion mastery levels and aptitude on the achievement, retention,and attitn4 of seventh grade ,students using a population geographytext: The three criterion levels used were 90 percent, 80 percent,and 70 percent of the correct responses on each of 41 lessons in"Population Growth-it the United States and Mexico." Aptitude vatmeasured' by a word meaning text. Aptitude was a major independentvariable because of the premise that mastery procedures may overcomeachievement difficultiep of low aptitude students. Contrary to mostof the literature on mastery learning, the results indicate thatmastery ore formative exercises did not contribute to higher leve ofachievement on the summative test. The study also failed to show hatachievement, retention, or attitude toward the unit differed amongthe three criterion groups. The study confirmed that previousknowledge, as measured by a word meaning test, was'a more potentfactor in achievement than were differential criterion levels.(Author/DE)

***********************************************************************Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished

* materials mot available from other sources. ERIC makes ,every effort *.* to obtain the best copy available. nevertheless, items of margi4g1 ** reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the quality ** of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes available ** via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). EDRS is not *

* responsible for the quality of the original document. Reproductions ** supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original.***********************************************************************

b-.

Q

kn

AUG 141915

MASTERY LEARNING: THE RELATION OF DIFFERENT

CRITERION LEVELS AND APTITUDE TO ACHIEVEMENT,

RETENTION, AND ATTITUDE IN A SEVENTH GRADE GEOGRAPHT UNIT

by

GLORIA COtiTRERAS.

B.S., Thb University of exas at El Pasoe 1969

M.Ed., The University of Texas at El Paso, 1973

A DisSertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

a of the University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment

of the, ,

Requirements for the Degree

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

ATHENS, GEORGIA

1975-

1' v.

(

U S OEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.EOUCATION & WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION

THIS' DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO-DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN.ATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEOUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS COPY-RIGHTED MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY ..

..1. W&TO ERIC AND ORGANIZATIONS OPERATINGUNDER AGREEMENTS WITH THE NATIONAL IN-STITUTE OF EDUCATION FURTHER REPRO-DUCTION OUTSIDE THE ERIC SYSTEM RE-QUIRES PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHTOWNER

I

G

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My °sincere thanks go to my professors At the University

of Georgia for the training they have 4ven me. A special

thanks is extended to Dr. M. J. Rice, my major prof5ssor and

Director of the Anthropology and Geography Curriculum Prop-

ects, -for his encouragement and guidance.°

Appreciation is also extended to the following personnel

for helping make this study possible:

El Paso Independent School District,

-1---),

,Superintendent: Mr. J. M. Whitaker

Director of Research: Dr. Guy McNiel

Social Studies Consultants: Mr. Clinton Hartmqn

Mrs. Yolanda Rey

Mr. Shelby Martin

Canyon Hills School:

Principal, Mrs. Marie Pedraza,

Ivacher, Mrs. Connie Pope

Crosby School:

Principal, Mr. Lamar A. Taylor

Teacher, Mrs. Carol Aune

Guillen School:

Principal, Mr. George Chriss

Teacher, Mrs. Lynne E. Payne

Henderson School:o

O

Principal, Mr. Joe Ontiveros

Teacher, Mr. Philip Duncan,

5White School:

f)

Principal, Mr. Charlet Holmes

Teacher, Mr, Benjamin F. ComersallO

iv

t

FOREWORD

This study was.undertaken as part of the continuing

research and development of the Geography Curriculum.Project,v

University of Georgia.

The content focus of the Geography Curriculum Project

is the preparation of supplementary units for the elementary

grades, emphasizing the organizing concepts of the disciplin

of geography, The research focus is the testingof some

psychological construct of learning, such as the nature.of

concepts, Ausubel's recepiion learning-model, Bloom's

Mastery learning, or Bruner's discovery hypotfiesis, undera

-normal conditions of school instruction.

The Geographi Curriculum Project thus serves as a small 47

research and development center. Xt develops neW materials

and measurement instruments, field tests and evaluates

materialss,,and facilitates thetraining of doctoral students

in geographic education.tt*

,--, The Geography Curriculum Project was initiated as a

result of a study of geographic content in elementary-social

science texts, manuals,'and study guides,. The evidence

indicated that elementary geography is primarily presented'as

a discrete body of facts, with little attention to the

organizing concepts of geography which help to analyze, inter-

pret and integrate physical and cultural phenomena. The

deN'Telopment of systeniatic geography units helps to clarify

)the teaching of geographic knowledge and concepts. The

research` emphasis answers questions relating to the

structuring of materials and their use in teaching geography.

4

a

R

Th

r.

O

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER

I. PURPOSE, BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES OF

THE STUDY . I

Background

PAGE

2

,Objectives and Research Hypotheses 12

Definition of(Terms 18

II. REVIEW OF THE/LITERATURE . . . . . 20

The History of Mastery Learning = ,

Bloom and Keller Mastery Learning

20

Strategies 31 .

Mastery Learning Research 35

Achievement 36

4'Retention 42

Attitude 46

Time 49

Aptitude and Achievement Under

Conditions of Mas.tery and*Non-

14

astery 53

Mlstery Learning and the Social

Studies 58

Orig'ns of the Present Stildy 62

De criPtionof the Block Study 63

CHAPTER

III.

Results and Discussion

PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGIES

PAGE

64

71

Description of Treatment 71

Treatment Variable 7141.

Instructional Unit . . 72

Sample Selection 77

YiA Duration of the Study 77

Pilot Study 78

Orientation of oreachers 81

Experimental Study 82

Description of Data Collection ,83

Word Meaning Test '83.

Adhievement Test . . .. 85

Attitude'Scaie 85

Description of Contextual Vari les . 88

Community and the School District . 88

Characteristics of Schools in the

Study

Characteristics of Teachers in the

b

90

Study 94

Summary of Contextual Variables . . 97

Experimental. Design 99

Random Assignment of Clasdes to

Treatment Groups .". .4. . .. 99

Distribution of ;Students by Treat-

ment and Vocabulary Level 104

'vi

C,

CHAPTER

Vocabulary Scores, Grade Equiva-

PAGE

,..

,

lent, and National Percentile,.,

Rank.. *.

:Unit of Statistical Analysis . .

108

,114

Statistical Procedures . ... . . . 114

Statement of the Statistical

.°Hypotheses' 115

"Significance Level - 116. 0

I

, . Limitations of'the Study, 117

IV..- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS . 120, -

Presentation of tile Findings 0 12'0

Discussion of the Findings ,. . .. . . . 133

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR FOLLOW-UP RESEAR& 145

Procedures r '146

Findings 147 '"

Conclusions 148

Recommendations for Follow -up

Research 151

REFERENCES' 155

.

APPENDICES. . . .. ...... - . .. 0 ... 166, .

..

A Table of Contents and Three Sample Les

from Population Growth in the

United States and Mexico 167

.vii

000102

t

APPENDICES PAGE

B Pupils' Personal Scbre, Lois for the 90%,

80%, and 70% Criterion Levels . . . . 4 1 7 7

TrseatMent Directions to the Student and

Teacher 18141

. ,

D Questior sfor Developing Map anc16Graph*o

0

Rading Skills .. . ... ..

o,

F Attitude Toward Any Subjpct /Scale, Short

Geography AchieVement Posttest

184.

190

A Fort 200

G Bibliography of M4stery Leaining Studies

at the College Level ... . iO3

Request for Authorization to ,Conduct Re-A

search 'in the El Paso Public Schopis 2080

Time Table for P4,1ot and Experimental

, Study

viii

,,

215

P.

4-

0.

TABLE

2.1

0

\

LIST OF STABLES

Achievement Under Conditions of. Mastery.

and Non-Mastery Learning .

PAGE

.37

2.2 Retention Under Conditions of Mastery and .

9

Non-Magtery Learning a 0 . . 44

2.3 Attitudinal Outcomes, Under donditigns of

Mastery and Non-Mastery .Learning'

Learning. Time Undx conditiond of Mastery- 2.4

r-,,2.5

2.6

47

and Non-Mastery Learning . . . 51.

-1Aptitude in Relation to Mastery Learningv . 54

Social Studies and Mastery Learg'.

Regearch . . . . .c. . 59

..Variables Used by Block (1970) and

Contrers 1(1975)

3.1 - Computed Reading Ease Scores ACcokding.to

\)

+4.

67 .;'

'rthe, Rudolf Flesch Readability Formula % 74- r

. A

3.2 S' Computed .Reading Ease ,Score According to .

a . ,

iFry Readability Formula ' . 76-

3.3. School Characteristic:is Summary Table ,. . . .91

.'3-4 , Taper Characteristics Summary Table-. . . 95'

.

3:5 Vocabulary Levels Acrots Two Types of4 1

-

Schools a .110

ix

00012

o

\ .

9

TABIkE

-3.6

.11? a f

1r'

Distribution of. Classes Across 'Treatment

by Ethnic Groups

.PAGE.

. ,101.

3.7 Experimental Layout ANOVA) .. ... 4. 102 -4

a

3.8

3.9

Mean Vocabulary Achievement Scores by

Treattent Groups

Number of Students by Vocabulary Level,"

105 .

Class, and Treatment 106

3.10 Mean heading Scores and Grade kquivalents

"7(by Treatment, Class, and Vocabulary

ti

Level . . :109

3.11- Mean Achie1;6ment Scores by Treatment, Dqr

Class, and Vocabulary Levd1 110 .

,3.12 Mean Retention Scores by,Treatment, ClaSs

.and Vocabulary Level . .. 111 .

'343 Mean Attitude Toward the Unit Scores by

Treatment, Class, and Vocabulary Level . 112--

3.14 Mean 'leading Scores, Grade Equivalent,

and National'Percentilt Rank for. .

Vocabulary Groups . .-. . ..... % . .2-113

4.1 Analysis of Vari.5-plc16Ibr Treaiment,, Vo-o

4.2

-

cabulary Level, andeinteractioh -

Achievement.Posttest 122

Achievement Mean Scores by Treatment and'

Voca&lary Level 123

-1

x ..

00013

13.

TABLE'

4.3 Analysis of Variance for Treatment,

Vocabulary Level, and Interaction -

Achievement Delayed Posttest

4.4 Retation Mean Scores by Treatment and

Vocabulary Level

4.5, Analysis of Variance foi' Treatment,

Vocabul,ary Level, and Interction -

Attitude Posttest . -

. ,129

PAGE

126

127

4.6 Attitude Mean Scores by Treatment and

Vocabulary Level . - . .

4.7 Summary of UnivariatepTests of Bignifi-

cance: Interaction and Main Effects

4.8 Number of fStudents Achieving Criterion

on the Summatiye Test by Tre tment

and Vocabulary Leyel and Mean

Achievement;' Retention, and Attitude,

by Treatment 135

4.9

130

132

Numbek and Peicentage of Students Not Com-

pleting the Unit and Mean Number of

LessOns Completed by Treatment and

VocOulary Level. 140

xi

oop14

O

a04

CHAPTER I

PURPOSE, BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES

This study is an

terion mastery levels

tention, and attitude

OF THE STUDY

assessment of the effect ofthree cri-

and aptitude on the achievement, re-

of seventh grade students using/

a

Population geogrAphy text. The three criteri n levels usedG

in this study were 90%, 80%, and 70% of the orrect'responses

on each of 41. lessons iwpopulationGrach in the United

States and Mexico. Aptitude was measured by a word meaning

test. Aptitude was a major independent vari le of thea

study because a basic premise of mastery learning is that

mastery procedures may overcome achievement difficulties of

low aptitude students.

This study, like'other mastery learning treatments in

social studies using anthropology (Gaines, c971) and geogra-

phy materials (Jones, 1974; Fagan, 1975; Myers, 1975), did

not find that mastery on formative exercises contributed to

higher levels of achievement on the summative test, a finding,

contrary to most of the literature on-mastery learning, aler

describedan the review of literature. The study also failed

to.show ;that achievement, retention, or attitude toward the

unit differed among the three criterion groups, a finding

O

2

specifically contrary to that reported by Block (1970) with

a four-day mathematics experiment. The study confirmed that

wasprevious knowledge, as measured by a word meaning test, was

a more potent factor in achievement th'an were differentialo

criterion levels.

Babkgroune'

Central to the history of formal education has been the

problem of how to approach instruction systematically so thaty

most students can learn what schools assign: Efforts to im-

prove student school performance have been noted since the

formulation of St. Ignatklas Loyola's Ratio Studiorum (Fitz-

patrick, 1933) to present day mastery learning processes

(Bloom,1968). Yet despite advances in educational psy-

chology and the investment of immense amounts of money, time,

and effort, every year a large proportion of students

achieve at low levels Of performance or altdgether fail to

succeed-in school tasks. Low perfoimance is cumulative, so'

these students increasingly fall behind pi their school per-

formance. The criticism of such educational shortcomings,

however', goes on in an atmosphere of frustration and futility

'-because there is no agreement on how correction is to be ap-

plied (Findley, 1972).

There is no generS1 plan or correctioh because educa

tors disagree considerably on what the central purpose of

formal education suld.bp (Bigge, 1972; Biehler, 971)..

Some maintain that it is theLintellectuar development of the

41

0 0 0 16

0

o

3

child'or the cultivation of his cognitive competence°(Bagley,

/930; Educational Policies Commission, 1961; Ebel, 1972).

Others give priority to a child's personal and social devel-

opment, his feelings of self worth and happiness, and his

sense of belonging and security (WillIelms, 19E7).

Those who promote the intellectlial approach to education

tend to support conventional school systems and practices and

to seek educational' reforms through successive improvements

in.traditionalkmaterials and instructional methods. Those

who give priority to a pupil'6s feelings and adjustment tend

to favor flexibility and frdedom for pupils,, teachers, curri-

culum, add procedures.' Many advocates of this latter .orien-

tation favor getting rid of textbooks, tests, grades, and

conventional classroom arrangements (Ebel, 1972).

A discussion of these two extreme approaches to educa-

tion, from a framewort of systematic analysis, is.given by.

CrSmith, Stanley, and Shores (1957L under the labels subject

matter and activity curriculum. Many aspects of the activity

curriculum have been revived in recent years under such broad

terms as the humanistic school (Krugei, 1974)' and the opqn

school (Bercheck & Tauss, 1973; Haynes, 1973). In 1970,

Barth and Shermis attempted to relate these divergent trends

specifically to 6cial studies under the three categories of

citizenship transmission, social science, and reflective

%inquiry.

Within the two orientations, intellectual or child cenv

tered, there is considerable diversity among the advocates

00011

4

of either outlook.. Whether the orientations by termed intel-.

lectual.or humanist, conservative or progressive, scholarly

or reformist, structured or unstructured, or formalistic and

naturalistic, there are important differences between points

.of view about the educational process with important conser

quences in the choice of methodology and in resulti (Jarvis

,& Rice, 1972).

To these di,2frences in philosophic premises about the

nature of knowledge and psychological assumptions about the

process of learning may be attributed many of the differences

in-educational theory and practice and the often 'biconsistent

application of reform .effort. In the current scene, for

'-examOle, advocates of competency based education concurrently

.accept he principles of Thorndikian (1906) and Skinnerian

(1954) scientific educational management as Ticated by

behavioral objectives and operant conditioning, while espous-

ing a greater amount of freedom for the child and teacher in

developing an emergent curriculum.

tad

A, A

These contrasting methodologies, have been described

by Jarvis and Rice -(1972) as formalism and naturalism. A

formal approach to education emphasizes the transmission of

subject matter andefficient teaching methodolo-gies'con-

trolled by the teacher. The natural approach emphases

the growth of the hild and learnihg methods emphasizing

child activity. Formalism assumes that rationality is baSed

in knowledge, while,.natpralism places morse emphasis on

emotions and sentiments and individual exp;ession.

5

In the nineteenth century, formal methods dominated the

American educational scene, despite child-centered 'approaches

adopted from Pestalozzian concepts (Jarvis & ice, 1972).

The Lancastrian sytem, in particular, was immensely pop

in the early part of the century, combining elements of c °

no ic efficiency with clearly defined and sequenced learning

a

pr edurest (Cubberly, 1934), In the twentieth century, for-,/ .(

malism has prevailed in school prActice while naturalistic

methods have dominated pedagogic theory. However, the Pro-

gressive Movement embraced both 'formalistic 'kid naturalistic

approaches. °Formalistic approaches included connectionist

L

psychology (rhorndike, 1924, 1932) and self-tutorial programs4

(Washburne, 1926,.:1940).. The most popular legacy of Progres-

sivism; however,yasnaturalistic and included the project

method (Kilpatrick, 1926; and the child-centered school (Rugg

4and Shumaker, 1928).

Formalism is most frequently associated with an elitist

educational view. Of contemporary measurement psychology

and tMorists in the United States, Ebel (1972) is one of the

. ,

most articulate spokesman for a highly intellectual approach

to,education, with schools serving as a screening mechanism

for social purposes. From his perspective, a good school

will not try to banish 'failuk.e. He affirms that "Whenever

-goals are reasonably challenging and standards reasonably

' high, failure are bound to occur. Kept to a minimum thy

constitute a valuable part of a person's education" (1972,

p. 48).' He suggests that one reason so few achieve

00019

6

excellence is an *over-commitment to a uniform program of gen-.

eral or liberal education for all.

In contrast to this elitist approach to education, there

is the idea that schools should exist without failure (Car-

roll, 1963; Bloom 1968). Proponents 'of this approach more

readily identify themselves with naturalistic approaches.

Some advocateS oeformalapproaches use edujational technol4

ogy as a means of eliminating fail re and bringing high Per-

formance levels to all students, notwithstanding differences

in individuaraptitude. Basically; this ia one premise of

compensatory education, triai diagnostic and ,prescriptiVe in-

struction management systems will rediice, if not completely

eliminate, the learning difficulties of children, tradition-

ally attributed to differences in aptitude. /

9

Many compensatory educational efforts have been directed

to environmental and social factorebeyond the school (Best,

1974; Kapenzi, 1972). Other approaches have been in the

naturalistic tradition, focusing on the self-concept of the

learner (Maslow, 1968). There have also been aN:yariety of21

structured school programs in the forma; tradition, ranging

from DISTAR, Direct Instrietiral Systemvfor Teaching Arith-

metic and Reading (Bereiter & Engelian, 1966) and the Pea-, ) 4

body Kit (Dunh & Horton, 19664 at the pre-school level to

programmed instruction (Skinner, 1954), 1PI, tndividually

Prescri d Instruction (Glaser, 1968), and CAI, Computer

Assisted Ins uction (Atkinson', 1968) at the high school

level. It is in this compensatory approach that the concept

r

7

. of mastery learning was introduced by Bloom in 1968, with the

claim that under appropriate instructional conditions vir-

.tdally all students can learn to a highievel most of what

they are assigned to learn.

Supporters of mastery learning allege that unsuccessfulo

and unrewarding school learning experiencescan be countered .

within the_-context of ordinary group-based classroom in.struc-.

tian (Bloom, 1968; Block, 1971).,Although,there Are a number? .

',of contemporary mastery learning qtrategies, according to .

Bloom (1974) there are four common charadteristics: system-

.atic instruction `, .feedback- correction, adequate time to1

schievr and a clear-mastery criterion. Furthermore,,, all be-

.gin with the assumption that such steps will help all, or

almost all, reach a high level of achievement.

The idea of mastery is not new to 'American 'educational

theory or practice, even though the specific terminologya

mastery learning was not coined untile 1968 by/Benjamin Bloom.

Earlier examples of mastery learning with specific operation-

al procedures are found in the Burk Plan of IndividUalized

Instruction (Washburne, 1940), the Winnetka Plan (Washburne,

1922); the Morrison teach-test-reteach schema (Morrison,

1926), and programmed instruction (Skinner, 1954). However,

it was Bioord who formulate0 the title mastery learning, a

new and more dynamic slogan .for an old idea.

The develdpment of Blgom's mastery learning instruction--

al model was related to the idea of compensatory education,

of wI1ich Bloom 6.965) was an early advocate. Compensatory/

00021

b

8

education became'the wa chword of the reform movement of the

19606 in which the pli ht of the disadvantaged student,, 1

usually of a minority group status and poverty-stricken, was

brought to national att- tion. Some of the most important

federal legislation pass -d during this reform period included

the Civil Rights Act and the Econoiniq Opportunity Act, both

of 1964, and the Elementary.and Secondary Act of 1965..' These0

.1

federal measures had powerful implications for all TeveLs of

the public school, resulting i4'a myiiad of compensatory pro-.

grants for disadvantaged students (Gwynn & Chase, 1969). ,

, One of the best known compensatory, plans was'the Head

Start Program, created under the Economic Opportunity Act of

1964. The treatment of the disadvantaged child was first4

brought into focus by this pre-school summer program for

poverty-stricken five and six year olds. A brief and inten-

sive summer session was designedsto provide childien formal)y

with what the middle class child received as a matter of

course-. however, most' compensatory scheme, whether with

Headtart at the elementary level or with Upward Boilnd at

the secondary levd1, failed to meet their objectives. 'Ac7

/Cording to Findley (1972), compensatory programs.such as Head

Start exemplify an educational panacea, and it is his thesis

that American education suffers most from oversimplified

panaceas to inherently difficult problems.

e abandonment of "compensatory" terminology to avoid

its undertones was successfully achieved by

Bloom in 1,968 when.he proposed mastery learning as a more

o

00022

O

acceptable slogan. Nevertheless,.the central focus' of mas-

tery learning did not change from the major objectives of

compensatory education--how to helb all pupils attain success-

ful and rewarding school learning experiences. To some of'

those favoring excellence in education, mastery learning only

represents another panacea in the history of Ameripan educa-4

tion which some educatorS erroneously believe "could lead

education to its promised land" (Ebel, 1972).

Bloom derived the theoietical base of mastery learning

from Carroll's (1963) conceptual model_ of school learnj.ng.i, .

In turn, most other contemporary mastery, learning approac es

derive their strategies from the Bloom model. -Whether grbup-\

based or.individually-paced,_mastery strateles are built on

the premise that the reason why many children, especially

those from underprivileged backgrounds, do poorly in school -

is largely due to the lack of sufficient time and quality of

instruction. Mastery procedures are designed to provide the

learner with the needed time and a higher quality of instruc-

tion through feedback-correction procedures.

The assumption that all children exp9sed to mastery

learahg will benefit to the point of eventually becoming

avetage, if bot above average, in achieveReptpignores some

significant aspects of the nature of differ ices in abilityt

The hope that the many' children in the bottom half will

equal many now in.the top half is an unrealistic expectation

(Biehler, 1971). In any mastery learning4scheme,.it appears-

very difficult to provide extra advantages for the bottom

B 00023 4

.... a a

r 2) "it. r

to

group of students that will not also affect, the top group.o

It seems that the same relative amount of opportUnity'which

. existed in'the first pldce will be maintained, regardless of

the'mastery strategy.. In fact, if mastery prdcedures "provide

% a better quality.of instruction, it is likely that the higher

aptitude student will also benefit; thus the entire,distrx-,,\ ,

bution of achievement-will be shifted upward, leaving the

same relative distr ibution.P

tt,

Most, mastery learning studies reported in.the . iterature

attribute increased performance to mastery strategies. How-

ever there are earlier studied using a mastery format,

withoutthe label, which show contradictory findings.. It is

questionable, based on the large literature dealing 'with per-

formance and individual differences (Cook& 1969; Conlon, 1970;

Duchstel & Meriill, 1973), if any mastery strategy can. ever

homogenize Perforiance. Even under optimum IPI (Glaser,

196V) andCAI (Atkinson,.1968) instruction, 4the.most able

students were able to achieve five times as much as the slag-.

est students. Thede findings indicate that the less able

students or the bottoi half, achieve less than the

higher aptitude students. 4

The present state of mastery research indicates that it

has not systematically examined the various variables implic-

it in any learning arrangement. Variables of the original

Carr llamodel as idAtified by Rice (1973) require systematic

examination to establish evidence to confirm mastery learning

allegations. Generally, proponents of. mastery learning have

00024

11

, adopted a polemical approach rather,than a research apptoach.

The tone of the two books edited_byBlock (1972, 1974), a-4

majoropropbnent of mastery learning, is charaoterize4 by ad-

vocacy more than ae-experimental attitude; The stu4es are

also single studiet with no replication; so-that the findings

are based on'a series 'f discrete studiei rather than a sys-/

tematic body of knowle0 dge. Much of the mastery learning

search ported bytiim (1970, 1971) and Block (1972, 1974)

is based Rim crude comparisons of mastery with non-mastery\

procedures. While such studies point to 'the superiority of .

:a Iftastery approach, tbeeprocedures are not'ufficiently-de-.

scribed in most cases to permit clear identification of the

treatment variables.

One of the least considered variables in mastery has

been aptitude, the attribute' most central to the discussion

of nasteryj learning and its relation'to achievement by lower

abili y btudents. If mastery learning is to function as a

corrective or compensatory mechanism for lower aptitude stu-.

dents, it is essential that the masterylprocedures utilized

not merely raise mean performance,of a class, but specifi-

cally raise the.pekformance ot lower aptitude studentl.

Furthermore, it is necessary to know what criterion level

facilitates achievement of lower aptitude students. A high

level of mastery, e.gl, 90%, might not be as effective as a

lower level, e.g., 70%, if it discourages pupil participa-

tion. Presently there is no evidence to indicate the optimal,

procedural elements of presentation and correction by subject,

00025O

fl

a

.' 12.Ab

'age, or aptitude. Consequently, it was decided to examine

the aptitude of studen,ts from thefttandpoint of differential

criterion leirels and the interact,ion effect of these t 1/1-e

, dependent variables' upon student phievement, retention, and

attitude. The objectives' and research hypothesis of this Ao

study are specified below.

Objectives and Research

gypotheses

This study had several objective/s. The first major

objective was to ascertain if different criterion levels

/helped children peiform at a higher level as measured by

qe number of resRonses on an achievement pest. The second

major objective was p_ampscertain the relation, of vocabularyA

level to treatment criterion. These major purposes con-

tributed to the selected objectives. #s

'

stated belor

1. 'To test the effect of 90,4 'and 70% criterionlevels on:

a. student achievement,b. retention, andc. attitude%

2 To test the effect of vocabulary on:

O

a. Student achievement,b. retention, andc. attitude.

3. To test,the interaction of vocabulary andtreatment on:

9

a. .student achievement,b.. retention, andc. attitude.

00026

(

e

13 ---

a, i', t-.

0=

There, were two independent and thrte dependent varia..- ,.

bles in this study. ',7he two independent variable's- were

terion level.and aptitude.' For purposes-of this study, these

''two terms are defined as follows:. criterion level a pre-, .

determined percentage of correct-responses equirqd for

master aptitude refers to an.achievement score on a vocabu-

lary test (S "Definition of Terms," p. 18),.

The ter !mastery" would seem to imply a perfect per-

formance 1 vel of 100% or a high performance lemel of. 95 %.

Evidence indicates that even a select college population re-

sents the requirements of perfect mastery in a learning

sequence (Sherman, 1967; Healey & Stephenson,1 )°. Block

(1970), however, is the only investigator who has, examined

the affect.of different criterion levels-95,885, 75, and j

65%--on various cognitive and affective variables. He found., *) 0 -

that the highest level of 95% facilitated achievement but .

. , 0

that the 85% level contributed to a better mix of sustained

interest in the subject and achievement (See "Review of

Literature,' p. 65). Block was,not concerned with the prob-.

lem of the low aptitude student, a major focus of this study,.

.and did not 'use an aptitude measure as a concomitant variable,

./The investigator.therefore selected the 90, 80, and 70%

levels for this study on the basis of experience,and, refer-

ence to other studies. It was known beforghand that the

sample in this study would consist of a large number.of low

perforhancing students, as measured by a vocabulary score.

Experience as a teacher with low aptitude students suggested

00027

14

that the investigator not select a criterion level so high

that it would adversely affect motivation and depress inter-

est in the study. A high criterion level of 90%, slightly

below the highest,used by Block, seemed to be a good inter-

mediate level in terms of his findings as well as conforming

to the common criterion used in below-college level studies

of mastery learning. Even though at first glance higher

levels might appear to be appropriate, the investigator con-

cluded that the 90, 80, and 70% levels were reasonable levels

for the objectives of this study. Criterion level, the treat-

ment variable of the study, was utilized to determine the

extent, if any, to which differential performance levels fa,

cilitated achievement, in particular for low aptitude stu-

dents.

The second independent variable, aptitude, was considered

a critical variable of this study. Mastery learning propo-

nents claim that the maintenance of a high criterion level

on formative exercises help lower ability students to over-.

come learning difficulties, customarily attributed to ow

aptitude, and to attain high levels of achievement on summa-

tive posttests. While studies comparing mastery with non

mastery procedures report an increased number of students

achieving'to higher performance levels, there is a lack of

evidence to' substantiate the claim of mastery learning that

mastery procedures overcothe achievement deficiencies related

to low aptitude (See'"$eview of the Literature," pp. 53-58).

,Q1

a

pO 15

The three dependent variables were achievement, keten-

tion, and attitude. Adhievemt,the 'first cognitive criter-

ion, is most frequently used by schools to measure learning

(614e1, 1972). Data on achievement reported by Collins (1970),

Kim (1970), Block, (1971), and Kersh (1971) Roint to an in-

. creased percentage of students attaining high summative

achievement levels when required to mainta0 selected per-,

formance levels throughout highly sequential matheMatical

content. While these studies suggest a strong relationship

between the maintenance of a prescribed criterion level dur-

ing sequential learningand final achievement, only Block

(1971) has'investigated which performance levels maximize

achievement for eighth graders studying matrixalgebra. This

researcher thought it important to ascertain in certain per-

formance levels facilitated learning for lower aptitude

.students studying social studies, a less structured content

area than mathematics.

The second cognitive criterion, retention, is defined

by Brownell (1948) as the maintenance of skills or knowledge

with no practice after the learning's completion. Block

(1970), Kersh (197 L) and Romberg, Shepler, and King (197,0)

reported a significant relationship betweenthe attainment of

certain performance levels and retention. These studies sug-,

gest that requiring learners to achieve to performance levels

they might otherwise not attain will have a positive affect,

on retention. Also, Block's findings indicate that particu-

lar levels-may maximize retention. It was decided to examine

00029

g 11

16

the relationship between the maintenance of certain criterion

levels and retention, ati well as the interaction effect of

those,two variables on students of varying aptitudes, db-

pecially those of lower ability..

It is conceded in.the literature that there is a rela-

tion between treatment and attitude (Sherman, 1967; Sheppard

& McDekmoti-1970). It suggedts that the attainment of a high

criterion level is related to a feering of the student that

he is achieving more adequately.(Veather, 1966). For example,

if a learner is required and assistedto maintain a criterion.,

level throughout his learning that.he might not attain given

his previous learning°predispositions, a positive change

toward learning might result from thb fact that he lamed

much better than expected. However,'the,effect of stringent

C.-erformanCe levels on intermediate grade students.of lower

ability'is still unknown.' Therefore, an investigation of at-

titude was undertaken to determine the relation of differenr.

tial criterion levels to attitude toward the treatment.

Unit completion time was a fourth dependent variable

originally considered by the investigator, as indicated'in

,the request to the El Paso Public Schools, Appendix Gj Only

a few of the children in-the pilot phase of the study failed'

to complete the unit within the allotted time, giving the

investigator the Impression that the 15-day time peridd was

adequate for the mastery procedures, described ini'Chapter III.

However, during the experimental study, more children than

had been predicted failed to complete the unit, especially

00030

17

in the low aptitude group where the mean lesson completion

rate for almost one-third of the students was only,23 of the

'44 unit lessons. Although self-report data on unit comple-

tion time had been collected, the fact that many stud6nts)

failed to .finish all the lessons made such data meaningless.

Unit completion time was therefore dropped as a dependent

variable in the study'. Mastery prOcedures reguirdthat time,. .

be open ended, so that lower aptitude students have an oppor-

'tunirty to utilize as much time asneeded to achieve the cri-

terion level'set for mastery. Therefore, the investigator

notes that a fixed instructional period automatically pre-

cludes the operation of mastery4procedures for all students.,

_From the objectives of the study, the following research

hypotheses follow:

1. There is a significant difference (p < .05)by crite;ion level--90%, 80%, and 70%--on

a. achievement, as measured by a geographyposttest,

b. retention, as measured by a delayedposttest, and

c. attitude toward the unit, as measuredby the Attitude Toward Any Subjectscale (Remmers, Short A Form).

2. There is a significant difference (p < .05) byaptitude level, as measured by the vocabularysub-test of the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, Form'6, Level 13, on

/a. achievement,b. retention, andc. attitude. .

3. There is a significant difference (p < .05) inthe interaction of treatment criterion leveland vocabulary on

0003

a. achievement,b. retention, andc. attitude.

18I

The next section dehnes terms, as used in this study.%

L

Most,of the terms follow stipulative definitions; operational

characteristics are enlarged upon in Chapter III Proc6daed.

0

Definition of Terms

The following definitions i4dicate'how the terms were.

used in this study.

MasterF earning. The operationdl characteristici'of, p

mastery treatments vary since each illveltigator stipulates

his own procedures. However, mastery learning it-general de-.

scribes a teachtest-reteach strategy with afeedback-cotiec-,

tive component to help students overcome learning problems

and achieve plastery. In this study mastery procedures in-,

eluded diagnosis, correction, and restudy of content if cri-

terion were not attained. Upon completion of the review

procedure, all students prodeeded to the next unit lesson

whether or not the criterion level had been reached. The

specific operational procedures are discussed in Chapter III.

Criterion Level. The criterion level 'is a predetermined

performance standard which represents .a proportion of right

4responses on each lesson and review test. Three criterion

levels were used, the 90%, 80%, and 70% levels.

Aptitude. Aptitude represents a score on the word mean-

ing section of the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills: Form 6, Level

00032

I L,

19/, o

.

,

,13 (Lindquist & Hieronymus,'1971) used to'determine a high,

or low vocabulary groUp for pUrposes of blocking r'4

,.

i

vocabulary as.

a concomitant variable.

Vocabulary Level. Vocabulary level refers to a high,

middle, or low grodp.to which students Were assigned for pur-

poses of statistical analysis on the basis of `the word mean-

ing section of the Iowa Tests of Basic &ills: Form 6, Level

13 (Lindquist & Hieronymus, 1971).

Achievement. Achievement is the score made on th unit

test for Population Growth in Mexico and the United States

administered as a posttest upon completion of instruction.

Retention. Retention is the score made on the same form

of the unit test administered as a delayed'posttest three. 0

weeks after instruction.

Attitude. attitude is a negative or positive dispri-. .

tion toward the treatment as measured by an Attitude 'Toward

Any Subject scale, Remmers, Short A Form (Silance & Remmers,

1934).

Chapter.II,'the Review of the Literature, discusses the

antecedents of mastery learning. Two major-mastery ay--.

proaches, from which most contempbrary strategies are d

rived, are explained in the second part of the review. The

third part examines mastery leaning research. The last

section describes the origins of the present studya.

00043

a

. 4,,

. CHAPTER. II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This chapter is divided into fout parts. 'Fifst, the aft-

tecedents of mastery learning are discussed briefly since ,a

mastery approach td.education is not a new idea in American

education. The second part explain& two major mastery learn=

ing approaches, the Bloom, or class, aced, strategy and the

-Keller, or individual paced, strategy. The bulk of reported

mastery research has employed one of these two approaches.

The third part reviews previous mastery research. The final

part describes how this study originated from an earlier mas

tery study by Block (1970). who examined differential criter-,

ion levels.

The Histoty of Mastery

Learning

Recent precursors of mastery learning include Burk's

__plan of individualized instruction, Washburne's Winnetka

Plan, Morrison's teach-test-reteach paradigm, programmed in-

:

.struction, and Carroll's Model Of School Learning. It

not until 1968, however, that Bloom formally introduced the

terminology "mastery learning."

20

00034

21

Frederic Burk of the San Francis-co State Normal School

introduced the Burk Plan of individualized instruction in

the early 1900s. His teaching plan was an attack against the

trditional style whisph he compared to the military sytem

and termed "Lock -step Schooling" (Washburne, 1940). As to

the effectivenss of the Burk Plan, Washburne, stated (194,0,

p. 251) : ,

Schools that have tried Burk's plan intel-ligently have found that it worked, that itsaved time, that it reduced retardation, thatit made school life happier and more efficientfor teacher and pupils that it actually madepossible the wide-range of individual differ-ence in readiness among children in a givenclass.

In the early 1920s Carleton Washburne and his asso-

ciates introduced the Winnetka Plan, one of the first com-

prehensive efforts made to individualize classroom instruc-

tion (Kersh, 1965). Washburne credited Burk for providing

the basis of th.e Winnetka Plan. Under'this- plan units of

achievement replaced traditional time units with promotions

being based on indi4idual achievement rather than time.

Failure, grade repetition, and grade skipping were elimi-

nated as a child proceeded to master.units of achievement,

called-goals, at his own pace. Each goal had to be mastered

by each pupil before proceeding to the next (Washburne,

1922).

The features of the Winnetka Plan of individual work

consisted of tl&ee basic iteps. The first step called for

00035

P

A.

40

22

the establishment of definite goals of subject matter units.

Second, there was the preparation of-tests which completely

covered each subject matter unit and diagnosed the difficul:i

ties of individual children. Third, self-corrective practice

materia.ls enabled children to both prepare for these tests

and make up the deficiencies shown by the tests.

During the 1920s Henry C. Morrison (1926) developed

'another precursor of mastery learning at the University of

Chicago'sLaboratory School. Morrison's "mastery formula"

consisted of the following steps under a group-based, rather

than individualized, method of instruction: pre-test, teach,.

test the result, adapt piocedure, and teach and test again to

the point of mastery.

\ The pre-test procedure served two important purposes.

First, it oriented the teacher and gave him ground for an in-,

telligent approach to the particular problem before him; and,

second, it tended to establish in the pupil's mind'a connec-

tion between prospective learning and present attainment.

Ina few cases pupils were excused from studying the unit for

already having mastered the content material.

The testing aspect of the procedure also had two pur-

poses. First, it provided information as to whether or not

the child should proceed to the next unit. Second, it helped

the teacher decide in which manner to modify the teaching

procedure if the test disclosed that mastery had not,been

achieved; Reteaching took place as many times as a teacher

judged necessary to bring most, if not 'all, students to

00036

o 23

mastery level. Pupils unable to respond to the routine in-*

struction of the claps group as a whole received specibl

study and treatment.7

The Burk, Winnetka, and Morrison plans shared five major*

fea ures. One, mastery was defined in terms of specific eau-..

cational objectives which each pupil was expected to attain.

Two, course work was organized into a sequence of learning

units. Each unit contained specific unit objectives and a

collection of learning material to teach those objectives.

Three, students were required to master each unit before pro-

ceeding to the next. Four, a feedback-corrective component%

provided teachers and stpdents with diagnostic information

regarding the adequacy of a student's learning. Diagnostic

tests indicated either unit masterx4or material still to be

mastered. Students failing to achieve unit mastery Were pro-

vided with supplementary material. Finally, each plan

treated time as a dependedt variable. Under the Burk and

Winnetka plans, student learning was individually - paced; each

pupil was allowed all the time he needed to master a unit.

The Morrison method allowed each student the learning time

his teacher required to bring all, or almost all, studeAts to

unit mastery under group-paced instruction.

Washburne (1940) gave the following reasons as to why

such mastery instructional plans failed to spread more widely

by 1940:

1) a lack of.adequate tests and texts for indi-

. vidual work,

000\31

4,1

fr

24(L.

2) a shift in emphasis from subject matter to

\ child-centered learriing,-and

3). the development of "compromise plans" ofO

ability grouping-and group projdcts in whicht

each child participated according to his own

ability:

Programmed instruction was the next major antecedent of,

mastery learning procedures. Pressy (1926) is usually con-,

sidered the first person to make a systematic effort to

automate classroom instruction. What Pressy, heralded in 1930

as 'the "coming industrial revolution in Vducation" failed to

materialize, however, and it was not until the 1950s that

Skinner's application of reinforcement theory to programmed

instruction brought about a revival of interest in programmed

learning (Keller, 1960.. The basis for programmed instruc-

tion is also a component in mastery learning. Programmed

learning begins with the idea that the learning of any com-

plex behavior ddiends upon the learning of a sequence of less-,

complex component behaviors (Skinner, 1954). Theoretically,_

a student can master any complex behavior so long as it is

. broken down into a chain of component behaviors. If a stu-

dent can master each link, it is then possible for him to

learn even the most complex skills.

Operationally, programmed instruction involves, the se-

quential presentation of material and a response requirement

for each stage. Subject matter is btoken down into steps

called "frames" which require some overt response. Immediate

00039

25

feedback to the student indicates mastery or non-master i? of

the behavior or frame presented.' An incorrect response is

immediately corrcted before misunderstanding results. A cor-

rai response brings a reinforcing positive confirmation,be-

fore proceeding to the next frame.

Increasing interest in programmed instruction led toa

large-scale field-te ting of programmed instruction in var-

ious types of schools roughout the country. Among the

first school systems t investigate programmed instruction in

large-scale terms were the Roanoke city schools of Virginia

. (Rushton, 1963), the Denver Public Schools of Colorado (Jones,

1962; Reed, 1962), and the Rural schools of Utah as part of

1 he Western States Small School,Project (Ford &_,Walker, 1961).

The initial enthusiasm for programmed instruction in the

1950s was followed by disappointment in many circles as some

of the limitations of a primarily technological approach to0.c.

education became evident A ,Fttsof all, many publishers

hurriedly produced ineffective written materials in an at

tempt to beat their competitors. Secondly, ,the cost of more

elaborate machines was so great that school systems were un-

able to buy them without some type of subsidy. Most govern-

ment and, foundation grants were reserved for pilot studies

(Biehler, 1971).

Despite the noted limitations associated with programmed

instruction, it has been used successfully withqa variety of

students from pre-kindergarten.upward and with the retarded,i

the' average, and the gifted (Schramm, 1964; Stolurow, 1962).

00039

*

26

Block (1971) noted in a review of mastery learning history

that programmed instruction provided an especially valuable

tool for those students who required small learning steps,

drill, and frequent reinforcement; however, programmed in-

'structiOn only provided a,useful mastery learning model in

situations not constrained by fixed classro6m groupings. NIn

effect, uogramme,d instruction operationally provides the

basis for an individual based approabh to mastery learning,

as'demonstrated in large sCale studies (Atkinson; 1968;

. Glaser, 1968) and in social science subjects (Thomas, 1967;

Fishburne, 1971). Overall, programmed instruction has had

limitedjacceptance it comparison with regular texts and non-.

print materials. There has'also been limited acceptance of

programmed instruction 17 school administrators and teachers.

It was John B. Carroll's "Model of School Learning ". of

1963 that served'as the basis for. the more useful mastery,

models to emerge in the late 1960.s (Bloom, 1968; Keller,

1968). Even though Carroll did not identify himself with the

mastery movement until 1971, his proposed "Model of School

Learning" in 1963 consisted of a conceptual paradigm'outlin-

inq the major factors influencing student success in school

learhing. Since this model has become to be theoretically

ideaified with,the mastery learning movement, it is impor-

tant to describe the nature of 'the model.

According to Carroll, the degree of learning is a

function of five interrelated factors. The full Carroll

model is:

00040

0

Degree of Time Spent (1. Time Allowed 2. Perseverance)Learning Time Needed (3. Aptitude 4. Quality of In-

struction 5. Ability to Under-stand Instruction)

The Carroll Model of School Learning places an emphasis

upon time as dimensions of-school learning. First, there is

the amount of time a .student actually spends in instruction.

This is usually a combination of the two fctors--time al-

lowed and the amount of time the studelt is actively involved

in learning. Second, there is the time actually needed.

Time needed,is affected by the aptitude a student brings to

the learning task, the quality of the instruction, and the

student's ability to understand instruction. Aptitude isran

index of not, only the level to which a pupil will learn in a

given time, btit also the amount of time needed to learn to, a

given level under optimal learning conditions. Quality of

instruction is defined in terms of the degree to whiche

presentation, explanation, andordering of the learning task's

elements approaches the optimum for each individual learner.

Ability to understand instruction represents the student's

ability to generally profit from the instruction arid is

closely related to general intelligence. Carroll proposes

that the quality of the student's instruction and his ability

to understand it interact to extend the timeneeded,for task

mastery beyong that normally required by aptitude for the

task. If quality of instruction and ability to understand

it is high, then little or no additional learning time is re-.

quired to master a learning task. However, if they are both

00041

28

16w, then much more additional time is required for task com-

pletion. The Carroll model is especially pertinent to cot

ceptualizations of mastery learning because it theoretically

emphasizes the need for additional time for lower aptitude

.students. But when a astery procedure, whdther for deficien-

cy of operational proc dui-es. or defect in student persever-

ance, fails to involve the student in more time in-learning,

. the mastery procedure cannot work as a remedial and correc-

tive strategy because the necessary component of additional

student time input isoabsent.

A major criticism of the Carroll model-is that it is

presented as an equation when, in fact; there is no complete

network of equations connecting the various components of the

model. Major measurement problems are associated with the

model of school learning; for exampleperseverance isper-

haps the most difficult component of all to measure or to

predict. In fact, Carroll shifted his emphasis from the

measurement of perseverance to its enhancement through teach-

er praise-and reward. Equally °difficult to measure is the

quality of instruction. With respect to teacher ability.to \\

manage instruction, which according to Carroll is synonymous

with quality of instruction, there has been no systematic in-

vestigation of the relationship of teacher characteristics,

to pupil mastery. There has also been no systematic study of

material variables. Another difficult measurement'task is

related to the true amount of time that a pupil needs to

learn because this is.a variable that cannot be observed

00042

directly since it assume

29

that a student is well motivated to

spend all of the necessary time needed to learn and that in-.

struction is optimal. Despite the major measurement problems

O

associated with Carroll's model of school learning and its

tautologica/-premise, this model has been the basis of con-°#

temporary mastery strategies. - 4

It was in 1968 that the construct of mastery learning,

was formally introduced by Benjamin Bloom in a seminal dr-

ticle "Learning for Mastery," adapted for-the 1971 Block

edition as "Mastery Learning." Bloom explicitly placed his

rationale for mastery learning on the five factors of Car-

roll's "Model of School Learning," previously discussed.

However, Bloom also acknowledges the eclectic sources of the,

idea in the work of a number of writers, including Morrison

and Skinner, previously Ilisclissed. Bloom goes much farther

than previous authors and suggests that remedial strategies,

hereafter referred to as mastery lehrning, are potentially so

powerful that "ninety-five per cent of the students . . .

can learn a subject to a high level of mastery (for example,

an A grade) if given sufficient learning time and appropriatea

types-of help" (In Block,1971, IoN 51). In this respect,A

Bloom depteciates the importance of aptitude, as traditional-

ly interpreted, and places himself in the school of the"environmentalists," citing his own work (Bloom, 1964) and

that of Hunt (1961) as optimistic grounds for believing that

manipulation of the conditions of learning are more important

than aptitude. He twists the studies of Atkinson (1968) and

00043

a

4

30

Glaser (l968) dealing with individual programmed instructibn

I as evidence that most dtudents can attain a.giVen criterion

of achievement. What he deemphasizes is the fact that, in

the time given, highest apt4tude students learned five times

faster than the lowest aptitude students. Dievertheless, he-

recognizes that a basic problem of mastery learning is to

find ways to reduce the learning time of lower aptitude stu-

dents so that the task will not be excessivelylong. He also

makes an.admonition. that is worth quoting: "It is unlikely

that mastery can be attained in a given term by students who

have had a long history of learning difficulties in such sub-

jecZ (In Block, p. 55). Iplicit in this statement, take'n

in the context of loom's general approach to compensatory

education, is the idea that mastery procedures must begin

early in the life of the child \nd be sustained over a long

period of learning: Shot-term intervention, the kind usually

involved in mastery learning experiments, mi0.'t ling 'about

experimentally significant results which might be regarded as

purely fortuitous in the context of gendral learning.

Bloom explicitly recognized that there were a number)of

mastery alternatives; however, he described in some detail

the procedures of mastery learning supplementing regular

group instruction. Consequently, the terminolpgy "Bloom mas-,

tery strategy" has become identified with group paded mastery;

an individual paced strategy has been paiticularly identified

with Keller, and have become-known as "Keller strategies."_-

These two Mastery strategies are described in he next

00044

31

section. This review of the historic antecedents of mastery

learning indicate that there were mastery models used before

e

cthe term was introduced. In fact, the'whole-conceplt of mac-

, 0

tory is c ncisely summed up in the model of Morrison, which

-isto "test, reteach, and test again."

Siloom and Neller Mastery

Learning Strategies

Two major models of mastery learning are Bloom's "Learn-

ing for Mastery" model and Keller's "Personalized System of

Instruction." One or the other of the serve as a basis

for most contemporary mastery strategies.

Bloom's mastery learning model is predicated upon the

assumption that up to 95% of students can learn much of what

they are taught to the same high levels customarily reached

by the best students. The problem is to be able t® define

what is meant by master of a subject and then to be able to

provide each student with the time and quality of instruction

needed to demonstrate this mastery. Bloom's mastery strategy

is primdrily.designed for use in a group-based instructional

situation where the time allowed for learning is relatively409

fixed, although the basic ideas are equally applicable in an

'individual-based instructional situation.

The first step in Bloom's mastery strategy entails the

formulation of an entire set of cognitive objectives that all

students will be required to achieve to a prescribed level

by the cdurse's end. 4A course is then broken down into a

00045

ti

32

sequence of smaller learning units, each typically c6vering

the objectives contained in about two weeks' instruction.

The material in_one unit builds directly upon the material in

the previous units. A sequence of learning tasks are con-

structed for each unit t serve as a blueprint on how each

unit might be taught for mastery.

Once the learning tasks for each unit have been de-

scribed, a brief, ungraded, and student-scored 'diagnostic- ,

progress test called a formative evaluation is constructed

for Bach segment or unit (Bloom, Hastings, & Madaus, 1971).

The formative evaluation, given at the end of each unit, in-

dicates which of the objectives within the unit a student'f

has failed to grasp. Finally, the teacher prepares a set of

alternative-learning materials or instructional correctives

keyed to the formative teats. These correcIIT:teach the

unit objectives, but they do so in ways different from the

teacher's group -based presentation. Learning corrective pro-

cedures include small group study sessions, tutorial assis-

tance, review .of the original instructional materials or

alternative textbooks, workbooks, programmed materials, audio-.

visilal materials, or other materials.

The Bloom strategy calls for the teaching of the first

unit of the mastery sequence uhder a normal group-based in-

structional. situation. Upon completion of the first unit,

formative evaluation is administered as a checking device to

see how each student is achieving unit goals. Those who do

not achieve as desired are referred to instructional

00046

33

correctives in order to attain the unmastered objectives. A

student may complete his learning on his own time or else be

provided with class time for review before group instruction

resumes on the next unit of instruction.

The cycle of group-based instruction, formative testing,

and prescription-corrective procedures for each learner'on

each unit is followed until all instructional units have been

completed. The course final examination, called a summative

evaluation, is administered at the conclusion of instruction.

The summative test measures achievement with respect to over-

all course objectives.

Bloom defines mastery operatiorially as performance at1.

or above a particular level (usually 86% to 90% correct) on

the final examination. The student's score on the summative

evaluation determines the final grade. Regardless of the '

a

number, any student who performs at or above the stipulated

mastery level earns an A grade. Lower grades are given to

those performing below mastery. However, Bloom alleges that

only a handful of students should obtain a B or C if the

Bloom-strategy has been followed by the instructional leader.

Keller's (L968) "Personalized System of Instruction"

approach to mastery learning is a second major mastery model.

The Personalized System of Instruction (PSI) is essentially

programmed instruction whereby the frames are substantially

enlarged and a personal-social aspect is introduced.

An instructor begins the PSI procedure by predefining

the cognitive course objectives. These objectives are then

00047

34

subdivided into a number of learning units requiring about

one week of work to master. Procedures whbreby a student

masters each unit typically include a listiof the objectives,

a suggested set of study procedures based heavily on textbooks

or other materials, a set of study quebtions, and a set of

test items over the unit's objectives.

A student proceeds through the units at his own pade.

After each unit is completed, a student is administered a

unit examination by a prodtor 4ra teacher. The examination,

upon completion, is corrected immediately by a proctor or

teacher. Perfect performance means that a student proceeds

to the next unit. The test, review, retest cycle is con-

tinued until a student is able to demonstrate perfect per-

formance on a unit.

Mastery is operationally defined by Keller as perfect

performance on a particular number of units by a certain

point in time. Grades are usually determined by the number

of,units completed by a particular point in time.

The two major approaches described above commonly seek

to help all, or almost all, pupils attain a high level in

(their learning. Both strategieS require prespecification of

cognitive objectives which each student will be expected to-.-

achieve to some high level. Both require that a course be

broken into a sequence of smaller learning units. The first

part of a unit is an instructional component, and the second

part consists of a feedback-correction feature. ..The purpose

of this latter feature is to monitor the effectiveness of

00048

35

the original instruction of each student and provide appro-

priatcorrective actions. Finally, grades are determined

solely on the basis pf a pupil's absolute performance rather

than on his relative performance. This grading procedurb

does not differ from traditional criterion-referenced testing

procedures for classroom instruction. It is the feedback pro-

cedure of the mastery method which allegedly produces higher

achievement results than traditional classroom teaching4

methods.

Keller procedures; which rely on more pupil initiative

and responsibility, are assumed to be more appropriate for

the college level while Bloom procedures, which invol've more

teacher direction, are assumed to be more suitable for younger

learners. Because Keller mastery grades are cumulative unit

rather than end-of-course grades, there is a built in tend-

ency for Keller mastery grades to exceed non-mastery compari-

sons. The next section will briefly summarize mastery

research pertinent to elementary instruction.

Mastery Learning- Research

This review of mastery learning research is classified0.

on the basis of five variables--achievement, retention, at-

titude, timee and aptitude. Mastery research related to the

social studies is also discussed. The purpose of the classi-

fication is to demonstrate the trends of previous mastery

reseatch and the almost complete absence of studies that

examine the various mastery variables implicit in and

00049

36

learninj system, especially the relationship of aptitude to

achievetent underldifferential criterion levels.

In reviewing the literature, the investigator has identi-,

Lied 51 studies of mastery learning. Of these studies, 35

were at the college level, and generally were rough compaii-'

sons of mastery versus non-mastery treatments (these studies

are listed alphabetically in Appendix G). It is inappro-

priate to generalize from mastery treatmehts at college

level to mastery treatment at grade school level because of

age and aptitude selection factors. This review of the mas-

tery literature, therefore, will'be restricted to mastery

learning studies below college level, except where variables

of'particular interest to this study, in addition to achieve-.

ment, have been investigated, i.e., retention, attitude, time

spent in mastery, and aptitude.

Achievement

Fourteen studies reporting achievement for mastery and

non - mastery strategies are summarized in Table 2.1. Thir-

teen of the studies were at the upper elementary or junior

high levels; only one was at a primary level. Eleven of the

studies were in one subject; three--two by Kim and one by

Lee--were in more than one subject. Nine studies were inc

arithmetic or mathematics; two in English, three in science,o

one in foreign language, and four in social science. The

four social 'science mastery studies (Fagan, 1975; Gaines,

1971; Jdles, 19747 and Wyckoff, 1974) were conducted under

00050

Table 2.1

Achievement Under Conditions of Mastery and Non-Mastery Learning

0

Study

and

Year

Number

in

Sample

'Level and

Content

Area

Duration

-

Results

Block,

J. H.,

1970

91

th, Matrix

Algebra

5 days

85% & 95% criterion groups achieved

significantly higher than non-mapter

students on summative posttest.

Collins,

K. M.,

1970

6 treat-

ments

4.,

25 per

class

8th, Mathe-

matics

N.S.

Objectives, diagnostic problems and

review prescriptions increased the

number attaining criterion from 40%

to 80%.

Fagan,

J.,

1975

470

7th, Geog-

raphy

4 weeks

No significant difference on posttes

between mastery and non-mastery

groups.

Gaines,

G.,

1971

28 classes

,.....

5th-8th, An-

thropolOgy

5 weeks

No significant difference between

mastery and non-mastery.

.,.

t

a

Table 2.1 (Continued)

Study

and

Yelr

Number

,_

in

Sample

Level and

Content

Area

Duration

Results

Jones,

G.,

1974

20 classes

7th, Geog-

raphy

4 weeks

Only middle aptitude groups of

mastery treatment achieved signi-

ficantly higher than non-mastery

group.

.

Kersh,

M. E.,

1971

5I

classes

Ie,

5th, Arith-

metic

1 year

1

63% of exp. group reached criteria

compared to 14% in the control

group on the final exam.

.

Kim,

if.,

1969

=

273

,

7th, Arith-

metic

N.S.

74% of exp. group attained cri-

terion on final test compared to

40% of control group

Kim, H.,

1970

5,800

7th,, English,

Mathematics

8 weeks

Percent Achieving Mastery on

(Summative Test

Subject

Exp.

Control

English

72%

28%

Math

61%

39%

4:7

.0 CA


Study.

and

Year

Number

in

Sample

Level and

Content

Area

Duration

.Results

ti

Kim, H.,

1971.

25,887

'

A

7th, English,

Mathematics,

Physics,

'

Biology

.

N.S.

Percent Achieving'OalM:Emy on

Summative Test

K,

English Math Physics Biolog,

Mastery

50%

48%

30%

22%

Non-Mas-

44 %.

26%

85%

37%

tery

Q

Lee,

et al.

1971

12,504

5th & 6th

Mathematics,

Science

N.S.

D..


Summative Test

Subject

Grade

Exp.

Control

+-Math

542%

12%

Math

645%

18%

Science

539%

7%

Science

646%

12%

Romberg,

A.,

,

Shepler,

J.,

King,'I.,

1970

N.S.

6th, Mathe-

matical Proof;

and Statis-

tics

N.S.

Mastery group achieved significantly

higher than non-mastery group.

.t.


StUdy

and

Year

Number

in

Sample

Level and

Content

Area

.

Duration

Results

.4

.

Smith,

M. I.,

1968

75

.

6th Spanish

N.S.

.

A comparison of listening compre-

hension scores of one mastery group

with two control groups revealed

significantly different mean scores.

Masteryl

76.8

Control A:

62.6

Control B:

62.3

Walbesser,

H., and

Carter, H.

1968

N.S.

.,

..,

1-3, Science

N.S.


SUmmative Test

Grade

Mastery

Non-Mastery

18,§%

54%

258%

19%

364%

22%

Wyckoff,

D. B.,

%

1974

4 classes

6th, Anthro-

pology

10 weeks

No significant differerice between

Mastery and non-mastery treatment.

0

41

the auspices' of the Geography and Anthropology CUrriculum

Projects, University of Ge9rgia, although Wyckoff was a stu-

dent at Georgia State University. The duration of studies

ranged from five days (Block, 1971) to eight weeks (Kim,

1970). The length of seven studies was not reportdd.

Except for the four mastery studies in social science,

the reports of findings seem to indicate that mastery pro-

cedures facilitated achievement in comparison with control

or non-mastery procedures. The data is not reported in the-

same manner for all studies, and thus it is difficult to.1

draw firm conclusions. As Table 2.1 indicates, most of the

studids report the'imrcentage,of mastery and non - mastery

students attaiiing criterion of mastery. However, the

four social science studies report data in terms of signifi-

cant difference between mastery and non-mastery groups. Al-

though details are lacking, it might be inferred that hier-

archically sequenced subjects such as arithmetic lend

themselves more readily to mastery procedures than do social

science subjects in which the sequencing of material may be

logical but not necessarily hierarchical. This aspect of

mastery learning will be dealt with in more detail in the

section critiquing the social science mastery learning

studies. In general, the reports of mastery and non-mastery

in Table 2.1 are crude comparisons of mastery and non-

mastery procedures.' e reports of the treatment and ex-

perimental procedUr s. in many cases are too scanty to make

firm conclusions about the efficiency of mastery treatment,

00055

42

notwithstanding the tendency to show that feedback-correction

prodedures facilitate the attainment of mastery.

Retention

Retention has been. explored in five mastery studies be-

low college level, one each at grades five, six, and eight and

two at seven. Three were in arithMetid or dlgebratwo were

in geography. The delay between the achievement test and

the delayed posttest was usually rather short, about 14 days,d0

as in the Block study (1970) but was about three months in

the Kersh study (1970).

Retention is an important concept in educational experi-

mentation. The object of instruction is not merely that the

student be able to perform a learn task immediatelk after

instruction, but that he retain the knowledge or skill to

perform the learning task at some future time. The main

problem of learning academic subjeAs, according to Ausubel

(1968), is the problem of maintaining the availability of

previous learned knowledge. The problem of forgetting char-

acterizes all learning, especially verbal factual material

which is not used between the time of initial learning and

the time the student is called upon to reproduce it, usually

on a test. Consequently, experimental treatments which are

designed to improve instruction frequently involve a reten-

tion test. The superiority of organization, lucid presenta-

tion, correction, review, and pacing manifest itself at some

delayed time after instruction; so runs the theory,

/-.

a

43

irrespective of the construct of mastery (Ausubel,

1968).

In the five studies in Table 2.2,"the superiority of /*

mastery treatment was manifested in the three arithmetic-

mathematics studies (Block, 1970; Kersh, 1971; and Romberg,

et:al.,. 1970 but not in the two geography studies (Jones,

1974; Fagan, 1975). In the achievement testing in these

studies there was a similar finding (See Table 2.1). The

five studies of mastery using a retention measure would not

permit one to conclude that mastery strategies always facili-

tated retention; more studies in different subjects at dif-

-ferent grade levels would be required. The,three mastery

studies in arithmetic and algebra- which show,a retention ad-

vantage forhe mastery treatment are'simply-conAistent with

the body of general research which indicates that there

appea5s to be less forgetting in hierarchically organized

arithmetic-mathematics than in verbal factual material..

Function of Cities (Jones, 1974) and Transportation

(Fagan, 3,975) were the subjects of the two geography mastery

studies. Both of these texts require the Student to learn

and retain a large amount of discrete factual material.

Since social studies is_characterized by a great deal of fac-

tual material which does not carry over from one period,

area, or topic to another, learning in social studies is

particularly subject 'to forgetting. Probably. the only way

for mastery-in social science to demonstrate_a retention ad-,

vantage would be to demonstrate a quantitative lerning

0005719

Table 2.2

Retention Under Conditions of Mastery and Non-Mastery Leaning

Study

and

Year

Number

in

Sample

Level-and

Content

,Area

,

Duration

,

Post

Test

belay

.

-

Results

Block,

J. H.,

1970

91"

8th, Algebra

,5 days

14 days

85% & 95% criterion groups

retained significantly higher

than 75% or 65% on the non-

mastery groups.

.

Fagan,

J.,

1975

470-

7th, Geog-

raphy

4 weeks -

3 weeks

,

No significant difference

between mastery and non-

mastery.

Jones,

F. it,

1974

.

20classes

. .

.

,

7th, Geog-

raphy

.

/

D4 weeks

17 days

.

No significant difference be-,

°tween high and low aptitude

subjects of experimental grow,

and those of contror group.

Middle aptitude group of mas-

tery treatment retained signi

ficantly more than non-master,

Kersh,

M. E.,

1970

5 classes

5th, Arith-

metic

1 year

,vacation

summer

-63% of mastery.group earned

80% correct responses on de-

layed posttest.

I


Study

and

Year

Number

in

Sample

Level and

Content

Area

Duration

Post

Test

Delay

.Results

Romberg,

A.,

Shepler,

J., and

King,

I.,'

N.S.

6th, Mathe-

matical

Proof;

Probability

and Static-

tics

2 weeks

4 weeks

14 days

28 days

Correlation between achieve-

ment and ittention +.75 and

+.78 on each unit, respective.

1y.

Mastery students retaina

significantly more than non-

mastery.

1970

°

46

superiority on the achievement test. Thus while mastery stu-

dents would forget, they would retain more simply because

they had rearn4smore in the first place. In the absence of

any demonstrated mastery superiority on the achievement test,

one should not anticipate a mastery superiority on a reten-

tion test in a social, studies subject.

6

Attitude

Only five mastery learning,studies have investigated

the relationship of mastery to student attitude, as shown in

Table 2.3. Of these studies, only that of Block (1970) was

conducted at the elementary level and explored different

Criterion levels in relation tooa ective measures. He found

that while the 95i criterion level on formative tests in-

creased summative performance, the 85% level produced sus-

tained high interest in and attitude toward the subject over

time. He. therefore concluded that a mid-criterion revel,

neither too high nor too low, best met the dual objectives

of raising performance and maintaining a positive attitude

toward instruction. A difficulty withthe Block

finding, however4 is the short duration of the study, one

week, including data collection time.

The four other studies reporting attitudinal outcomes

provide contradictory findings. Sheppard and MacDermont

(1970) reported higher student interest in a mastery than in

a non-mastery course in college psychology but Lawler, Dick,

and Riser (1974) found no difference in attitude toward,a

00060

Table 2.3

Attitudinal Outcomes Under Conditions of Mastery andNon-Mastery Learning

Study

and

Year

Number

in

Sample

Level and

Content

Area

Duration

Results

,

Block,

J. H.,

1970

91

8th, Algebra

.

5 days

85 % -& 95% levels had more positive

effects, but 85% level produced

sustained high levels of

interlast

and attitude toward subject over

time.

Achievement scores 85% group

increased, but attitude scores

dropped.

Healy,

J. R.,

and

Stephenson,

k.

K.

1975

N.S.

College,

Introductory

Geography

semester .

Informal observational data; no quan.

fiable.

Initial novelty effect gave

way to dissatisfaction attributed to

early need for systematic study.

By

fourth week complaining diminished,

perhaps because students made adjust.

ment to regular study.

Lawler,

R. M.,

Dick,

W., and

Riser,

M.,

1967

167

College

Health

Education

quarter

No treatment mean difference on atti.

tude questionnaire toward health

education.

Scores almost the same

for the traditional type instruction

and the computer managed instruction


Study

and

Year

Number

in

Sample

Level and

Content

Area

Duration

.

t

Results

Sherman

J.,

1967

N.S.

College

Introductory

Psychology

semester

Final reaction to course was

positive

as Measured byquestionnaire, but

initial resentment toward perfect '.

per unit masteryrequirement was

noted.

Sheppard,

W., and

Mac Dermot,

H.,

1970

300

College

Introductory .

Psychology

.

N.S.

tLevels of student interest inatti-

tude toward the topic learned

significantly hi her for mastery

group.

49

college health education course by mastery and non- mastery

treatment groups. Sherman (1967) and Healey and Stephen

(1975) found negative attitudes toward perfect mastery re-

quired in a college psychology course giving way to more

positive.attitudes toward the end of the course.

The mastery learning research associated with affective

variables indicate not only a paucity of research but incon-

clusive findings. Since a favoraple attitude toward instruc-

tion may be related to perseverance in the mastery learning

task, it was decided to collect attitudinal as well as seog-

nitive data in the present study.'

Time

One of the most significant variables in the Carroll

Model of School Learning, previously discussed, is that of

time. In fact, a short form of the Carroll Model expresses

learning as a function of time spent in learning in relation

to time needed to learn (See page 27). One of the dilem-

mas in school instruction is that the lower aptitude-...,_

students, who actually need to spend more time in learning

a task than do higher aptitude students, frequently spend

less time in the learning task than do higher aptitude stu-

dents. Differences in learning attributed to aptitude become

even greater because of differences in time spent in the

learning task. Consequently, part of the strategy of mas-

tery learning becoMes the devising of feedback and corrective

00063N

50

procedures which require that the time spent in learning more

.nearly approximates the time needed to learn.

Notwithstanding the importance of time in.learning, only

three studies have systematically reported data on amount of

timeaspent in learning (Table 2.4). Two of these studies--

Block and Joneshave been at the elementary level and one at

the college level. Block and Jones both reported that mas-

tery treatment required more time than non-mastery, a finding

consistent with the theory that learning to mastery would re-v,

quire more time. The Merrill, Barton and Wood (1970) find-

ing that the mastery group required less time than the

non-mastery group is, on the surface, inconsistent with the

assumptions of mastery learning.

While Block reported a significant difference in both

achievement and retention between the highest criterion,and

control group,'Imes did not. The difference in their re-

sults may be attributed to a difference in time. Block

found there were no significant differences in time across

the three higher criterion levels--both took about 84 minutes.

owever, this time was about 35 minutes more than the 49

minutes of the nonlImastery group. This was a substantial

increase. Jones likewise reported time spent in minutes,

but the proportion of additional time spent was much less.

Block reported 50% more time for mastery over non-mastery

treatments; Jones reported only 14% more time. The fact

that Block found that higher criterion mastery procedures

significantly affected achievement and learning while Jones

00064

0 0 crt

Table 2.4

Learning Time Under Conditions of Mastery and Non-Mastery Learning

Study,

and

Year

Number

in

Sample

Level and

Content

Area

Duration

Results

Block,

J. H.,

1970

91

8th, Algebra

.,

05 days.

75%, 85%, & 95% groups spent about

same total amount of learning time

on three units, about 84 minutes, com

pared to 66 minutes for 65% level and

49 minutes for control group.

Jones,

F. G.,

1974

.

20 classes

7th, Geog-

raphy

o

4 weeks

Mastery treatment took significantly

more time than non-mastery varying

from 88 minutes for low Aptitude to

60 minutes for high

aptitude

stu-

dents.

.

.

Merrill,

M.,

Barton,

K., and

Wood-, L.,

1970

.

40

College,

Imaginary

Science

.

5 lesson

span

.

Time in

earning decreased for ex-

perimen

1 group with specific

review

rocedure.

Even though stu-

dents

eceived more material than

cont of group they took less time

to co

lete lessons.

o

,

Ui

52

did not may be attributed not only to differences in subject

matter but to .differences in time. It is possible that the

'procedures Jones utilized in his study did not require the

mastery students to spend enough additional time to make a

difference, in comparison with the non-mastery treatment.

However, it should also be pointed out that the Jones study

utilized a workbook in addition to the text for both the con-

trol and mastery groups, whereas Block merely used a text,

without any exercises between study and the summative test.

It is possible that mastery procedures, such as that of Block,

in reality compare good teaching with deliberately con-

structed poor teaching situations. In such a case, the mas-

tery procedures make a difference because they require more

time. Where control procedures approximate quality instruc-

tion, without the provision for formative evaluation, such

as usedoby Jones, it is less likely that the mastery

procedure will make a difference. This results from the

fact that the feedback-correction procedures of a so-called

.mastery treatment do not require enough additional time,

when the control or non-mastery treatment utilizes practice

exercises, as in a workbook.

Findings in relation to the use of additional time

spent in learning are somewhat contradictory in the context

of other types of studies. Thus both Dale (1972) and

Pelletti (1973) found that the increased time spent in using

the Forced Inferential Response Mode to construct responses

from a data base did not contribute to an increment in

00066

53

learning over that of learning from a narrative text. Fish-

burne (1971); on the other hand, did find that a programmed

text in archeological methods bkougfit about a significant

difference in achievement over a narrative text. He attrib-

uted the difference to the fact that the programmed text took'

more time for study than the narrative text.

The time dimension in mastery learning is one that re-

quires more attention. One difficulty, however, is that

there is no uniform definition of mastery, and that mastery

studies might be no more than comparisons of optimum with

minimum qualityinstruction. As poted-in the first chapter,

the unit completion time variable was omitted from the pres-

ent study because the time constraints of a fixed instruc-

tional period did not permit all students complete their

'''work.

Aptitude and 'Achievement Under Conditions

of Mastery and Non-Mastery

Five studies, summarized in Table 2.5 explore the re-

lationship of aptitude to mastery. In view of the essential

hypoplesis of mastery lerning, that mastery procedures may

reduce the negative affect of aptitude on learning, it is

surprising that so little attention%has been given to some

measure of aptitude as a concomitant variable in mastery

learning research. Use of aptltude as a blocking variable

permits the investigator to classify students by aptitude

level and ascertain if mastery treatment is more effectiIe

00067

Table

Aptitude in Relation to Mastery Learning

4.1

Study

and

Year

Number

in

.

Sample

Level and

Content

Area

Duration

Criterion

Level

Results

'

Fagan,

J.,

1975

,,

.

470

High, Mid-

dle, Low

Vocabulary

Levels

©

7th, Geog-

raphy

4 weeks

85%

_,y

Aptitude Meaure:

Vocabu-

lary, Iowa TBS, 1071 Forms

5 &.6.

Vocabulary level

significantly related to

achievement and retention

irrespective of treatment

group.

No difference in

achievement or retention b:

treatment.

Glaser,

G.,

1968

N.S.

k-6,

ath

,

.

n

3 years

,

85%

.

.

Aptitude Measure:

N.S.

,High ability students

mastered 5 times as many

units as low ability stu-

dents.

Range of unit

completion to mastery was

1 to 60 days.' A + .72

correlation between

previous knowledge and

number of units covered

over a 3 year period..,


Study

and

Year

Number

in

Sample

Level and

Content

Area

.Duration

.Criterion

Level

Jones,

F. G.,

1974.

20 classes

High, Mid-

dle, and Low

Vocabulary

Levels

7th; Geog-

raphy

4 weeks

85%

Resultt

A titude Measure;

Vocabu-

1 ryi Iowa TBS, 1971, Forts

5 & 6.

Vbcabulary level


abhieVement and retention,

eIrespective of treatment'

cept for middle aptitude

-m stery which achieved and

r tained significantly more

an non-mastery.

Kim,

.H.,

1969

t7,

273 above

& below

average

7th,' Math

M.S.

80%

Aptitude Measure:

M.S.

50% of experimental stu-

-'denes with below-average

,achieved 80% correct

on summativetest compared

td, only 8% of control

group.

951 of experimental stu-

dents with above-average IQ

reached criterion compared

totdnly 64% of control

group.


Study

and

Year

Number

in

Sample

Level and

Content

Area

Duration

Criterion

Level

Results

Wyckoff,

D. B.,

1974

4 classes

6th, Anthro-

pology

10 weeks

_

70%

Aptitude Measure:

IQ, Otis-

Lennon

Reading level and IQ level


achievement, irresp

tive of

treatment.

Mastery t

at-

ment positively affecte

achievement cif low reading

level but not high reading

levq1 or any IQ level

4

57

than non-mastery treatment for low aptitude students or if

it merely raises the level of achievement for all aptitude

groups.

Vocabulary sub-tests of reading tests have been used as

aptitude measures in two studies (Fagan, 1975; Wiles, 1975)

and reading scores were used in a third (Wyckoff, 1974). IQ

test scores have also been utilized (Kim, 1969; Wyckoff,

1974). Reading scores correlate highly with'IQ scores, since

the group intelligence test is -essentially a reading test.I ,

(Ames, 1968). Reading scores correlate highly with achieve-

ment in social studies (Thomas, 1967; Dumbleton, 1973).

4Consequently, low scores on either a reading test or group

intelligence test normally.predict poor school performance

on achievement (Ames-gt Walker, 1964). Mastery learning strat-

egies, according to Bloom, are specifically needcd to prevent

this anticipated low performance.

The results of mastery research involving aptitude

measures (Table 2.5) indicate little ground for optimism.

Kim is the only one to give po ttive findings. The individ-

ualized programmed1instruction o Glaser (1968) reported a

correlation of .,72 between previous knowledge and the number

of units coveredover a three year period. Moreover, high-

est ability students covered five times as many units as

lowest ability students. The Glaser study is significant

because of the large number of the experimental sample and

the long time span--three years. The three other studies of

00071

.1)

Fagan, Jones, and Wyckoff repor no significant difference

by treatment acro6s aptitgde, although there were significant

differences in performance by aptitude group.1 .

Aptitude was included in this study as a concomitnt

58

variable to ascertain if working toward different criterion,

levels would increase the affect of treatment and decrease

the impact of aptitude on learning.

Mastery Learning and the Social Studies

Except for psychology at the college level, the social

sciences have not been the subject of frequent mastery

0learning research. The popularity of psychology in mastery

studies at the college level, excluded from this review but

listed in Appendix G, is probably due to the fact that the-

subjects are readily available in intact classes to the

psychology professors conducting the experiments.

Four studies of the social sciences, exclusive of col--

lege studies, are summarized in Table 2.6. The findings of

the four studies have been consistent, indicating that apti-

tude, as measured by reading, IQ, or vocabulary, was a more

potent factor in student learning than treatment. The

social studies are dependpnt upon the ability of pupils to

read to process informatiodra high level of mastery may

therefore be unrealistic for low reading ability students in

social studies, even under mastery treatment procedures. De-,

ficiencies in reading are cumulative through the years, and

mastery prbcedures applied during the course of a short

Table 2.6

Social Studies and Mastery Learning Research

p.

Study

and

Year

Number

in

Sample

Level and

Content

Area

Duration

e

Results

Fagan,

J.,

,1975

.z.

470

7th, Geog-

raphy

4 weeks

.

Mastery procedures did not overcome

learning problems of low aptitude

students.

Gaines,

G.,

197,1

L.)

28 classes

5th-8th,An-

thropology %

5 weks

Carroll's interaction hypothesis be-

tween ability to understand.instruc-

tion and quality of instruction not

.

sustained.

Important to control

teacher variable.

Jones,

F. G.,

1974

20 classes

.

7th, Geog -.

raphy 2

4 weeks

Only middle aptitude mastery group

performed significantly higher than

non-mastery group on posttest and

delayed posttest.

-

Wyckoff,

D. .B.,

1974

4 classes

.

6th, Anthro-

pology

k.

,

10 weeks

No.significant difference between mas

tery and non-mastery.

Mastery had

no differential effect upon aptitude

.or sex of students.

60

treatment are insuffiCient to make a corrective impact. How-

ever, the four social science studies included in the table

have all been conducted in association with the Anthrippology

or Geography Curriculum Projects, University of Georgia. It

may be that the mastery treatments have lacked sufficient

corrective power. On the other hand, the conditions of in-

struction in the four studies for control as well as mastery

groups attempted to provide "quality" instruction. The lack

Of difference in mastery as compared with non-mastery treat-

ments may also result from the fact that the quality of

instruction providelthe control group did not sufficiently

differ from that of the mastery group. A major limitation

of these studies has been the time constraints of a fixed

instructional period which has not permitted all students,

especially lower ability students, to complete the treatment

unit. Therefore, the lack of time for unit completion de-.

feats the essence of mastery learning procedures.

Gaines (1971) tested the affect of mastery with fifth,

sixth, seventh, and eighth grade Students using anthropology

materials. Gaines applied two learning strategies that were

assumed to differ in quality of instruction in order to test

the interaction of ability to understand instruction and

SIR quality of instruction. His mastery strategy involved the

use of multiple choice test feedback. His control strategy

utilized lesson practice id) workbooks with self-correction.

He assumed that his mastery strategy differed in quality

from the workbook strategy. From his results it was not

00074

O61

possible to confirm the Carroll Model's hypothesized inter-

action of ability to understand with the quality of instruc-

tion. The differential effectiveness of teachers may well

have obscured,the main treatment effect. In addition, the

actual difference between the test feedback and workbook feed-

back strategies may not have been sufficient to produce

significant achievement differences.

Jones (1974) reported that achievement differences by

aptitude of seventh grade students were not eliminated when

self-instructional geography materials were used. Students

of high aptitude scored significantly highervthan middle and

low aptitude students as did students of middle aptitude over

students of low aptitude on Yearning and retention. There

were no differences on the times-to-testing between any of

the aptitude levels because instruction took place within a

fixed time limit. Jones Suggested that the lack of teacher

monitoring in administering the review tests may have con-

%t ibuted to the poor performance of the low aptitude students.

Lo aptitude students require close personal supervision by

the teacher, frequent feedback and lear#ing success (Stuemp-

fig & Maehr, 1970).

. Wyckoff (1974) used anthropological content to compare

the achievement of sixth graders under mastery and non-

mastery conditions. The investigator considered treatment

by IQ and reading level. The study did not produce evidence

that mastery learning makes a significant difference in mean

achieVement between mastery and non-mastery groups. Highly

00095

62

significant differences were reported in mean achievement be-

tween those students with low IQ scores and high IQ scores

and high reading ability and low reading ability. Fagan

(1975), who measured aptitude by a vocabulary teSt to derive

high, middle, and low vocabulary levels, also reported that

differences in achievement and retention by aptitude were

highli'signifaant_but not treatment.

The social sciences are part of the required curriculum

throughout the elementary grades. Normally, three years of4

social studies are required in high school. Continuing ef-

torts to improve achievement in social studies are needed.

This study attempted tb utilize procedures which would make

learning of a population geography bnit, pregented in the

form of a data base and constructed, responses, more effec-

tive.

Origins of the Present Study

This study developed out of an interest in the relation-

ship of different criterion levels of performance to pupil

achievement. In 1970 Block conducted a study of "The Effects

of Various Levels of Performance on Selected Cognitive, Af-

fective, and Time Variables," referred to previously in this

review. In contrast to other mastery learning studies which

typically selected some arbitrary criterion level and com-

pared mastery with non-mastery treatments, Block used four

different criterion levels and a control group. The criter-

ion levels were 95, 85, 75, and. '65%; no criterion level was

00076

O

assigned the control group. Since the mastery procedures

were the same for each of the experimental groups and the

63

control group, except for the correction procedure which did

not apply to the control group, the significant experimental

variable was the various criterion levels. In addition to

cognitivemeasures of achievement, Block also was interested

o in the relationship of certain affective outcomes, such a6

interest in and attitude toward mathematics, so that he might

ascertain an optimum fit, if any, between criterion, achieve-

ment, and affective outcomes.

7Description of the Block Study

The, sample consisted of 91 eighth graders from four

classes in a lower-middle class, suburban, elementary school.

The subject was a three-unit sequencein matrix algebra, pre-

sented ih the format of a programmed text for individual use.

The principal reason for selecting ,,matrix arithmetic was its

sequential nature; each instructional.segment built dirAtly

upon prior segments.

Sixteen students in each class were randomly-assigned

to mastery treatments--four per treatment by criterion level

-and the remainder were assigned to a non- mastery treatment.

The control and the 65 and 7p groups nere placed in one

room and the 85 and 95% groups in another. The use of rooms

made it possible to group students who were expected to need

compaFable amounts Of learning time. Mastery procedures con-

sisted of the following: text study, formativ test, restudy

00077

z 64

in alternate form of text, second formative test, teacher or

peer tutoring, and third formative test. -Students moved to

the next unit when criterion level was attained on the forma-

tive test. If the criterion level was not attained after the

third formative test, the student proceeded to the next.as-

signment. The alternate form of the programmed text was a

more detailed and complete explanation of the learning tasks.

Revjew of the alternate programmed text was facilitated by a

coded review sheet, which referred the student to the un-

'learned or misunderstood material. The duration of the study

was five' days, including pre-treatment and post-treatment ad-

7 ministration. 1Four of the periods were 80 minutes, and one

period was a 40 minute session for students who needed more

time.

Cognitive data were collected by means of investigator

'Iconstructed tests of achievement, transfer,"and retention.

Retentio

meat tes

was measured by an alternative form of the achieve-

administered as a delayed posttest two weeks after .

the achievement test. The retention test was preceded by a

15 minute review.

Results and Discussion

Results w,''1 be discussed in terms of cognitive and af-

fective measures. There was significant difference in

achievement in the 85 and 95% groups over the control group,

but no significant difference in the performance of the 65

and 75% groups over the control group. The only mastery

00078

65

group that showed any transfer advantage over the control

group was the 95% group. The results of the retention test

were the same as for the achievement test, significant diffdr-.

ences over the control group at the 85 And 95% levels but not

at the 65 and 75% levels. In terms of learning time, the

mastery procedures were effective in requiring students at

the higher criterion levels to spend more time in review.

The five groups, experimental and control, spent about the

same time in initial study of the text. The three criterion

levels of 75, 85, and 95% required approximately the same

amount of review time--31 minutes--so that total learning

time for these groups was about 84 minutes compared to 49

minutes for the control group. By unit III, however, it

would appear that mastery at the 95% level contributed to in-

creased learning,efficiency. Students in this group took the

same text time as the control group, but on the first forma-

tive test made a percentage score of 74 compared to 54 by

the control group.

Affective results indicated that attainment of either

the 85 or 95% levels yielded significantly greater interest

in and attitude toward the arithmetic than the non-mastery

treatment as measured concurrently with achievement. Only

attainment of the 85% level yielded significantly higher

scores than, tbe non-mastery treatment as measured concur-

rently with retention. Both interest in and attitude toward

arithmetic scores decreased from the short-term to long-term

00079

66

administration, but only the 85% level produced sustained-

high levels of interest and attitude over time;

Block's findings indicate that by varying the perform-

ance level required of students and by using simple fee ack-

correction techniques to ensure that the prescribed level is

attained, end-of-sequence achievement can be increased around

a high average score. He suggests that 80 to 85% correct ism

a more realistic standard to maintain throughout a mastery

learning sequence. Setting standards too high may be waste-

ful in terms of teacher and student time, and may have a

negative effect on student motivation. The lower standard

tends to provide more opportunities for student success and

thus increases the amount of positive reinforcement.

The limited generalizability of Block's findings was the

main reason for the present study. The investigatOr wished

to extend the format of the Block study using a larger sample,

a longer learning sequence, and different subject matter.

In addition, aptitude, as measured by a vocabulary test, was

included as a, second independent variable, to ascertain

whether the maintenance of any particular criterion level in-

creased achievement of lower aptitude students on a summative'

posttest measure.

The characteristics of the present study and the Block

study (1970) are compared by variables in Table 2.7. -The most

striking differences in the two studies are in the length,

of 15 days compared with five; the subject matter, population

geographycompared with matrix algebra; sample size, 734

00080

Table 2.7

Variables Used by Block (1970) and Contreras (1975)

Variable

.

Block Study

.Contreras Study

SAMPLE

Number Subjects

Number Classes

Subject Loss

% Subject Loss

No. of Teachers

)---\

91 415

.(1

6%

734

2433 4%5

GRADE LEVEL

.

7

DURATION OF STUDY

Inclusive Time

Treatment Time

Retention Elapsed Time

.

._

5 days

3 days

2'weeks with 15 minute

review

. 15 days

14 days

3 weeks, no review

INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIAL

Subject Matter

Nature'of Material

.

,

_Matrix Algebra

Sequential and hierarch-

ical; skills build

on previous learning

-----,

,

Population Geography

Factual, using descri

tive, analytical, and

tynthetic statements

and generalization; s

quencing.logical but

not hierarchical

0 O CO

Table 2.7 (Continued).

.

Variable

,

Block Study

.

Contreras Study

Format of Material

A

-.

,_

..

,

c

Individual tutor t s

.

in alternate forms

Individual self study text

using constructed re-

sponges on incomplete'sen-

tences drawing on a data-

base (FIRM)

DATA ANALYSIS

Concomitant Variable

Design

.

Unit of Analysis-

Principal Method of

Analysis

None

,Pre-test, posttest

Individual pupil

Analysis of Variance

.,

Vocabulary knowledge, as

measured by -Iowa TBS,

.

Forms.5 and 6, 1971

Post-test only

Aptitude group within class

by treatment

Analysis of Variance

MEASURES

Cognitive

-------

Achievement, end of unit

Retention, after two weeks

.

Transfer

..-

Achievement, end of unit

Retention, after three

weeks

---

i

A

CO

Table 2.7

(Continued)

Variable

)Block Study

Contre;s Study

Time

Affective

b>

Time to Criterion

Interest In Algebra

Attitude. Toward Algebra

and Its Difficulty,

Huson, 1967

_..

f" - - -

..

---

,Attitude Toward Any Sub-

ject, Short Form, Remmers,

1960

.

t

MABiERY PROCEDURES

First, Treatment

Feedback

Second Treatment

Feedback

Third Treatment

Feedback

Proceed

Tutor Text

Formative Test

Alternate Form Tutor

t_

Text

Second Formative Test

gutoipg

Third Formative Test

.

To next letson, without

meeting criterion

FIRM Text

Formative Eicercise

Review of same data base

in FIRM

Same formative exercise

- --

' ---

.

To next lesson, without

meeting criterion

.1

70

compared with 91; formative tests, two compared with three;

the unit of analysis, the group within class compared to the

individual; and concomitant variable, vocabulary knowledge,

compared with none. While other mastery studies in social

science have compared mastery with non- master procedures and

have also involved aptitude as a'concomitant measure, the

distinctive characteristics of the present study are the use

of differential criterion levels and aptitude applied to mas-

tery learning in a social studies unit. Thus the mainobjec-,

tive of the study is to ascertain if differential criterion

levels interact with mastery and aptitude to produce signifi-

cant differences in achievement, retention, and attitude

toward the subject. The inclusion of aptitude as an inde-

. pendeht-variable is important because a major premise of

(Jastery learning is that a feedback-correction component in-

cluded throughout a learning sequence will enable all students

to master what the school assigns to a high level of attain-

ment.

The next chapter will review the general methodologies

and specific procedures used in testing the hypotheses

raised in Chapter I and enlarged upon in the review of the

literature.

00084'

ft

CHAPTER III

.PROCEDURES.AND METHODOLOGIES

This chapter is divided into six parts. The first three

describe treatment, data 9ollection, and contextual variables.

The next two parts describe experimental design and statisti-

cal procedures employed. The final part describes the liMita-,

tions of the research:

Description of Treatment

This section describes seven aspects of the study: °-

treatment variable, instructional unit, sample selection, dur-

ation of the study, procedures for the pilot study, orienta-

tion of teachers, and procedures for the final experimental

study. 1.

Treatment Variablero

The treatment variable in this study, as noted in Chapter

I and II, consisted of the differential affect of three cri-

terion levels of achievement on final achievement as measured

by the summative test. Customarily, performance on an achieve-. 6

ment test is a dependent variable because it is ,1.1 outcome of

some treatment variable. In this ma5t9ry, learning stdy,

however, the requirement that various groups attain different

7.1

000/35

) 72

criterion levels to ascertain the differenti impact of per-

formance levels, makes what is traditionally the dependent

variable--achievement--the experimental variable. The three

treatment levels, to which intact classes were randomly as-

signed were: T1, 90%; T2, 80%; and T3, 70%.

The same unit of instruction and classroom procedures

were utilized by all treatment groups, irrespective of criter-

ion level.

Instructional Unit

The instructional unit was Population crqkath in the United

States and Mexico (Dale and Rice, 1972), written for the Geog-

raphy Curriculum Project of the University of Georgia. The

text presents basic concepts of demography and population

geography in a historical and comparative format. The unit

materials consist of a pupil text and a pupil answer booklet-\N

and may be used as an individualized tutor text, as''a text for

clasS-paced instruction, or a, combination of individUalized

and class paced instruction. Appendix A contains the text's

table of contents and a sample lesson from each of the three

parts. within the unit.

There were four principal reasons for selecting the, unit

Population Growth in the United States and Mexico.. The first

reason for selecting the unit was the structured nature of the

material, with clearly designated iedrning outcomes and feed-

back procedures. Accordir4 to Carroll (1963) and Bloom (1968),

structured material of this type lends itself to mastery

00086

73

learning procedures. The instructional unit is organized ac-

cording to a method of presentation called the Forced Inferen-

tial Response Mode (FTRM). It uses incomplete sentence stems

to force students to derive information from a data base in

order to construct a series of sequential responses. The cor-

rectly completed stems compose a logical narrative of informa-

tion contained in the data base. In this unit, the data base

consisted of maps, graphs, tables, nd charts. The FIRM text

is accompanied by a response bookl t which permits the stu-

dent to obtain feedback as to the correct nature of his re-'

sponse.

A second reason for selecting the. unit Population Growth

in-the United> tates and Mexico was the appropriateness of0

readability. Readability of the unit was not reported by Dale,

even though it was written for students in the middle grades:

It had previously been tested with fifth, sixth, and seventh

grade students.

Two standardized reading formulas were used by thks,re-

searcher to determine re: lability. The Rudolf Flesch (1949)-

formula for readability'was one formula applied. Four read-

ing ease scores were computed from sample selections taken

from the beginning, the middle, and the end of the unit text.

These scores indicated that the sample selections had read-

ability levels of grades five, six, and seven (Table 3.1).

A second standardized reading formula, used to determine

readability was the Fry. (1965) formula. The mean\number of

sentences per 100 words was 7.2, and the mean number of

00087-

O

.

O

74

Table .3.1

Computed Reeding Ease Scores According to the

Rudolf Fleich Readability Formula

PageNo.

ReadingEase

ScoreGradeLevel

8

48

54

80O

92

78

81

73

5

7

6

7

00088

It

(

75

syllables per 100 words was 138. On the graph for estimating

readability,'the intersection of these two means indicate a

seventh grade reading level (Table 3.2).

Third, there was the appropriateness of subject matter.

Seventh grade social-studies curriculum in Texas, where the

research was conducted, deals with Latin American and Texas

history. Mexico is often a topic in much of the state's so-

cial studies curriculum because of its proximity to the

United States and the resulting cultural diffusion between

the two countries.

Fourth, and more important, was the specific relevance

of the unit to the geographical location of El Paso, Texas,

the city where the research was conducted, and to the large

Mexican American population of the area. Together Ciudad

Juarez and El Paso form a border metropolitan area of ap-

proximately one million people. The majority of the El Paso

population is of Spanish surname (El Paso Chamber of Commerce,

1974). The unit explained, to a large extent, the histori-

cal development of the Mexican American population now con-

(P .

centrated the Southwest. It also reinforced previously

taught material on Texas and Mexican history. The decision

to use this unit was made after a sampile hadbeen identified

for the research and formal arrangements with an El Paso

school district had been finalized. The procedural arrange-

ments with the El Paso School District are given in Appendix

jH.

00089

76

Table 3:2

Computed Reading Ease Score. According to

Fry Readability Formula

Sentencesper

100 words

Syllablesperper

100 words

100-word'saMple Page 4 9.1 122

100-1444 sample Page 32 8.8 148

100-woid sample Page 82 6.6O. 11

1303 21.7 3)

1..

414

Average* 7.2 138

*Readability measured at grade seven level.

/ a

P,

00090

\

O

O

Sample Selection

77

This researcher made arrangements with the officials of

the El Paso Independent School District in Texas to obtain 24

seventh grade classes in five schools for the experimental

study. Teacher selection was based upon a willingness to

take partj.n the experiment.

Duration of the Study .

Preparations for conducting a pilot study prior'to the

experimental study were made by the researcher for a 15,day

instructional period from February 3, 1975 to FebrUary 21,

1975.

The experimental'study was conducted over a 15 day in-

structional period from March 3, 1975 to March 21, 1975.

During this period the three driterion treatment groups

studied the unit Population Growth in the United Sipates and

Mexico.. At the end of the 15 day instructional period, a

posttest of geography achievement and an attitude, scale were

administered. A delayed posttest of geography achievement

was administered three weeks after treatment to measure ie-

'tention.. The time,ischedule of the study is included in Ap-

pendix 1.

The procedures employed,in the pilot and experimental

study are described in the'following sections.

ro

010091.

'

78

Pilot Study

A pilot study was conducted from February 5, to February

21 to monitor treatment procedures to be used in the experi-

ment. Three classes from the El Paso Independent School

District were utilized.

In the pilot,study clasPes were randomly assigned to the

904 80, or 70% criterion levels. The prescribed criterion*

level was to be attained before proceeding from one lesson to

the next. All classes received the same unit text and answer

booklet. Students also received a personal score log which

included the minimum number of correct lesson responses

'needed to meet the prescribed criterion level. A sample of

the score log is given in Appendix B.

Several important procedural changes resulted during the

pilot study itself. One change was the elimination of a

semi-class-paced mastery strategy. Originally, the proce-,

dure called for a discussion by the teacher of a lesson's

data base-,before students proceeded to study the lesson on

their own and compleie the unfinished sentence stems of the

respective lesson.

The teacher, <therefore, was to play an important role

in the study by systematically introducing to the class each

data base of the unit's 41 lessons. Howevek, this semi-

class-paced procedure was abandoned' a few days after the

pilot study got inderway. By the third day few students

were on the same lesson. The teacher's explanation of a

00092

t

79

given data base created.a disturbance to those who were behind

or beyond the data base under discussion.

It-was decided to allow students to continue through the

unit on an individual basis, with teacher assistance to the

individual. The students were instructed to request teacher

assistance. whenever difficulty was encountered. In this

manner, explanations, clarifications, and other types of

guidance were offered to children on an individual basis and

as the need for help aros&.

A second change which occurred during the pilot study

was the_ elimination of study groups. -Originally, study

group6 were designated as one means of providing feedback-

correction_ to those students who had failed to achieve the

prescribed criterion-. After the first day of the pilot

study, it evident that this procedure wgs difficûlt to

implement. Instead, class monitors, those who had completed

the unit or were far ahead of the class as a whole, were

used to assist Otudents having learning problems. Monitors

were instructed not to give answers to students, but to help

t to derive the answers from the data base themselves.

All subjects, irrespective of the criterion level re-

quired to reach, followed the steps described below.

1. The date the student began the treatment Wasrecorded in the personal score log.

2. The treatment began with lesson one. Studentsstudied the data base.

3. TheA.ncomplete sentence stems, correspondin/to each lesson's data base, were finished.The responses were_ written in the unit, text.

000931 ,

6

4. When all sentence stems were completed, the,finished lesson was shown to the teacher. Theteacher gave the student an answer booklet to .

check his responses.

5. The number of correct responses was recorded inthepupil's personal score log under the column."First°Exercise" (Appendix B).

6. If the student answered at least-the minimumnumber of stems correctly, as indicated onhis score log for each lesson; he proceeded'to the next lesson.

7. If the student did not achieve criterion onthe lesson, he reviewed the data base of thesame lesson a second time. He studied thedata base until he thought he understood itwell enough to repeat the written exercise.

8. A sheet of paper was obtained from the teacherin which the answers were written.

9. The correction procedure was repeated as in-

dicated in step 4. This score was enteredin' the log under the column "Second Exercise."Whether or not criterion had been attained,students proceeded-to the next lesson. Thepilot study had shown that almost all studentsachieved,,criterion on the repeated exercise.

10. Students proceeded at their own pace untilthe unit was completed. Students recorded ,

the date of unit completion in ..th4r score

logs.

11. The final posttest was administered bn the15th day of treatment.

Throughout the learning unit, the teacher and appointedo

monitors assisted students requesting help inunderstanding

a lesson. If tkelinit was worked upon at home, students

were required to record the time spent studying.0

The researcher conducted the pilot study herself forO

two reasons. First, the original. classroom teacher did not

have sufficient time to study the unit or to review the

-. A

00094

CD"

81

mastery procedures prior to the beginning of the pilot study:

In order to assist students with learning difficulties, a

thorough understanding of the unit was essential. Secondly,

a participant-observer approach enabled the researcher to re-,

tain or modify mastery procedures for the final experimental

study. Having directly experienced the pilot study facili-

tated the teacher orientation meeting between the researche

and the teachers in the final experimental study..

Orientation of Teachers

A three hour orientation meeting'w

participating teachers of the five cooperating schools on

eid with -the five

February 27, 1975 four days priok to the beginAing of the

treatment. February 27 and 28 had been designated as in

service days fOr teachers of the El Paso Independent School

,

District, and principalsrincipals of-the paiticipating,teachers

grarited'them permission to attend the orientation arranged

by-the researcher. Teachers had previously received copies

of the text Population Growth in the United States and Mexico

and had reviewed the unit prior to orientation.

The orientation stressed the importance of the teacher

in the experimental study. The unit required close teacher

supervision and participation. It was important that they

be completely familiar, with the unit in order to assist stu-

dents encountering difficulties with the lessons. Therefore,

teachers were asked to complete the unit themetives before

the beginning of the experimental study. Some teachers,

00095

4

4

( however, did not complete the unit unti billowing

.2

week.

On the first day of the treatment, students were to re-

ceive an explanation on the use of maps, graphs, charts, and

tables to facilitate completion of the information statements.

The researcher demonstrated this lesson to the teachers and14110

provided them with additional'aids to facilitate the teach-

ing of Otis introductory lesson. The directions to the

students and 'teacher are given' in Appendix C. ^The sample

questions for at least one'of the lessdns involving a map, a

chart, a graph,-and atable are given in Alpendix D. This

lesson. ormat.for class paced mastery was used by teachers

4 4 ,

to introduce new material, but was not Used as originally in-

tended-V/1.th each les-son.

Experimental Study

Except for One major change pertaining.to the availa-

bility,of' answer booklets, the expezimentar procedup

resembled thepprocess pursued in the pilot phase of the study.

In the,final study,answer booklets were not distributed to

indivpual.students. Individuals were required to show

their completed.lessons to the teacher, who in turn released

an answer booklet to them for self correction in a specially 'It

designated area of the classroom:

This alternate measure was thought to reduce the proba-

bility of copying answers without study of the data base.

The researcher had netedjn the pilot study that some

00096

C>

83

students tended to locate responses in the answer booklet

before devoting ample time to the study of a. data base to

fer an answer. The reluctance to persevere in the learning

task was thought to be enhanced by the immediate availability

of an answer booklet which each individual could readily re-

sort to. Therefore, teachers of the final study4ecided to

retain control of answer booklets. However, there is some

doubt that students reached the stipulated criterion level

because students self-reported their individual progress in

personal score log. Even though students were required to

,show their completed lessons to the teacher before obtaining

an/answer booklet for checking purposes, the teacher did not

have sufficient time to systematically check the pupils'

exercises for accurate reporting.

The next part on data collection describes the two,

achievement tests and the attitude scale administered to

students.

Description of Data Collection

This,seetion describes the word meaning test, the

achievement test, and the attitude scale 'used in the, research.

t7ord Meaning Test

Data for the treatment by blocks design was provided byq

the word meaning ectionof the Iowa Test of Basic Skills:

Form 6, Level 13, a 48-item,.,four-foil. multiple choice test

(Lindquist 4, Hieronymus, 1971). It was administered prior

09091

k

rD

84

to treatment to all students in the 24 participating cl sses.

There is evidence to indicatt.-. that vocabulary achievement

correlates highly with achieveient)when the University of

Georgia Anthropology or Geography Curriculum Project mater-

ials are used (Thomas, 1967; Gaines, 1971; Jones, 1974).

Word meaning knowledge and total reading achievement

are also highly correlateld. Vocabulary knowledge is'essen-

tial to reading ability, and has been used to predict success

in school (Traxler:1945; Johns, 1972; Duffy, et al., 1972).

Therefore, a vocabulary score Tkas utilized as the blocking

variable because of its high correlation with total reading

comprehension and achievement and economy of time in adminis-

tration.

The word meaning section of the Iowa Tests was also

chosen for its high test reliability. According to the Tech-

nical Manual (Lindquist & Hieronymus, 1971), the grade seven

vocabulary test has a test reliability of .89, and the Tead-

ing test has a reliability of .92. The standard error of

measurement for the vocabulary test is 3.0. Word meaning0

-had a correlation of .81 with reading comprehension, the

highest correlation of any sub-test of the Iowa 'Battery.

The researcher utilized the ANLIGH (Analysis of Item

and Test Homogeneity)tprogram to compute the reliability of

the (Word Meaning Section of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills:

'Form 6,level 13 with a random sample of 100 students from

the population of 734 seventh grade students from the El Paso.

Independent School District who participated in this study.

00098

4

1

85

Computation of reliability by Cronbach's Alliha Indices gave a

Coefficient of .83.c,

Achievement0

The summative test used in this study was a 50-item,

four-foil nultiple choice test developed by Dalein 1972.

The content validity of the test, according to Dale (1972,

p. 52), was controlled by a table of specificatiCns and com-,

parisons of content and test items. He reported a reliabil-

ity, Kuder-Richardson #21, of .91. aue the population of

the present study was geographically'id ethnically differ-,

ent from that of the Dale study, the investigator computed a

new reliability score for,the subjects in this mastery study.

The ANLITH program gave a coefficient of .93 (Cronbach's

Alpha Indices). A copy of the test, is given in Appendix E.

Attitude Scale'

It was evident to the researcher that there was no

standardized scale in existence that measured attitude to-

wart mastery learning with geographic subject matter. How-

ever, the volume Scales for thejleasurement of Attitude by

Shaw and Wright (1967),reports 172 attitude scales with at

least minimal reliability and validity. 7/he authors suggest

that "Attitude_ research has been hindered by the inaccessi-

bility of existing attitude scales resulting in-less-than-

oiDtimum advances in the scientific analysis Of attitudes." /

--Therefore, they reported scales which they considered to be

among the most useful-in meeting current research needs/

00099 /0

Among the many generalized scales contained in the Shaw

and ight volume was one scale that measured attitude toward

-any s pool subject, developed in two equivalent forms by Si- g

lance a d Remmers (1934). Silance and Remmers (1934) reported

equivalen -forms reliabilities ranging from .81 to .90, using1

different -chool subjects as attitudinal yeferents. Ferguson

(1952) cites the following reliabilities for four differe6t

subjects: bi Logy, :81 (n = 269); chemistry, .70 (n= 771);

English, .68 (n = 705) ; Mathematics, 174 (n = 579). --Stoddard

reliabil of .92 (n = 30 classes) for,,(1975) reported

AMerican his ty.

Elol on

usin

4

alidated the scale for construct validity

iterion gr

e are

ups measured for interests and 17;imes

f mathema ics. Strunk" (1957) offered some evi-

dence of conc rrent validity with a cor lation of .39 be-

tween this scale and the Scores of 130 subjects'on a graphic

rating scale of expression of interest in a psychology course.

This scale seemed reasonably valid and reliable for pur-0

. poses of this study; however., there was also a shortened

form of the 45-item scale developed by Remmers in 1960. The

investigator selected the Remmer's 17-item short A Form

rather than the long 45-item A Form for-the study because

the short form would take less'ime for administration.

Time was essential to consider in this study because students

were administered two posttests on the final day of the

treatment, and'the investigator thought that there might be

a lack of time for the completion of both tests by all

00100

O

87

students in one.class period. Both posttesta--the geog-

raphy achievement posttest and the attitude scale- -were

successfully completed by the subjects of the pilot study

when the short form of the attitude scale was administered.

According-to, a review of the Remmer's shortened test

forms by Campbell (1953)as reported in The Fourth Mental_

Measurements Yearbook, the test manual gives no criterion4

forthe selection of the rCetained items. No correlations

betWeen the original and short forms of the various general-49

ized scales developed by Remmers and his associates (The

Fourth Mental Measurements Yearbook, 1953) .are provided, nor

is data 6n'reliability reported. Evidence of Validity comes

from the older forms of the scales, that is, the typically

high correlations between the,generalized scales and Thurs-.

tone scales on similar attitudes (CaMpbell, 1953 &Clark,

1953). Both reviewers of the Remmer's shortened test forms,

Campbell (1953) and Clark (1953), note the unique usefulness

of the'Attitude Toward Any School Subject scale as a general-

ized scale and predict their continued use.

Although no data on reliability or validity for the

short form was found, the investigator assumed that reliabil-

ity and validity would differ only as a result of, the de-_

crease in items. The present investigator determined7

reliability of Form A by the equivalent forms method.

Form B of the 174item Attitude Toward Any Subject scale was

adrilinistered to a sample of 111 students in the study after

00101

88

a delay of three weeks and 00\the same day the delayed post-

test was administered. The responses of these students "on

Form B were compar d with their'r.eSponses on Form A, giving

a correlation of .93. On the hlsisof the correlation of

short Form A and B in this study,'FOrillA is conSidered a re-

liable measure of the possible influene,of different

criterion levels on attitudes for this stet

A sample'of Remmers Short Form A, modified as "Attitude

Toward A Geography Unit," is included in Apperidix F.

Descriptipn of Contextual Variables

This section discusses those contextual variable* which

may have affected the treatment but could net be controlled

in the experiment. They include the effect of the commtmity

and the school district, the school, and the teachers,

variables considered pertinent to the experiment's external

validity. The results of this study can be generalized to

groups using similar materials and with characteristics simi-

ear to those in the treatment sample.

Community and School District

The study was conducted in the El Paso Independent

School District of El Paso, Texas. The population of the

city of El Paso is approximately 360,725. For the county of

El Paso, the population numbers some.400,971 people. The .

prOportion of racial categories for ..he county is as follpws:

Caucasian 96.1%, Black 2.8%, Indian-'.2%, Japanese .2%, and

00102

89

all oter-.8%. Persons of'Spanish language or surname cm-

prise 58.1% of the city's population and 56.9% 4i'the county's

population (El Paso Chamber of Cbmmerce, 1974).

! El Paso is adjacent to the Rio Grande River and Ciudad

Juarez, Mexico. Together' these two form an economically in-

tegrated metropolitan area with a popufation of approximately

877,347 people. International' border crossings from-Juarez,

Mexico to El Paso number 41.,936,813 in 1973 (El Paso Chamber

of Cotmerce, 1974).

The economic base of the city andtcounty of El Paso'is

apparel manufacturing, sRelting and refini,ng of'metals, andui

petroleum, refining and the distribution of natural gas. El

Paso's economy also inclu4es major military expenditures from

Ft. Bliss, a major nationa), defense training center.

Twenty-one high schools, five junior high schools, and

91 elementary schools serve' the city's 108,084 students (E1

Paso Chamber of Comterce, 194). Seven small independent

school .stricts outsidethe gity limits serve an additional

7,744 students. The'El Paso Xn4ependent School District con-

sists of eight high schools, 4telementary and intermediate

schools, three intermediate sch040,ind one junior high

school.

Bussing is not used in the c04.nty of El Paso to

tate a balance of Mexican American Std Anglo American stu-

dents in every school. The director-Of Pupil Services for

the school district (C. F. Hart, Persehal interview, March

21, 19.75) reported that bussing was rejected in El Paso

00103

9

90

because the city itself is integrated. To maintain this bal-

ance, the El Paso Independqnt School District is subdivided

into small visions. Students are required to attend those

schools within the sub-districts in which they reside. Two

of the high schools, however, serve almost 100% of students

of Spanish surnames. Some 11 elementary-intermediate and

junior high schools serve as feeder schools for these two

high schools.

Characteri ics rof the Schools in 'the Study

The 24 classes that participated in this study were lo-

cated in five schools in the El Paso Independent School Dis

trict. Each teacher completed a questionnaire which

described both teacher and school characteristics considered

relevant to the study. The reported data relating to the

socio-economic status of pupils in this study is based on in-

forma? teacher use and not on precise SES data. School

characteristics are summarized in Table 3.3.

School A. This school was constructed in 1967. It hag'

54 teachers and is administered by an appointed principal.

It is anelementary-intermediate school ^containing grades

k-6,

The classes are departmentalized, and Students are

heterogeneously grouped. This composition of the student

body is approximately 50% Anglo American and 50% Mexican

American. Socio-economically, the surrounding school area

ranges from upper6class to lower class. The school population

001.04

0 crt

Table 3.3

School Characteristics Summary Table

School

Date

Con-

structed

No. of

Teachers

Grades

Percent Ethnic

Composition

SES

Dominant

Language

Anglo

Mex, Am.

UM

L

A1967

54

k-8

50

50

25

50

25

English

B,

1958

58

6-8

1.

98

66

34

Spanish

C.1972

,11

6-8

60

40

25

60

15

Engligh

D1958

47

k-8

, 50

50

a 25

50

25

English

E1925

47

.7-9

100

25

75

Spanish

t-,

.,

or'

47

J

is approximately 50% middle class, 25% lower class, and 25%4

upp r class. Students from two extremes attend this school--.

0

children from farm, workers and children ,from the community's

wealthiest se9tor.

School B. This school was constructed in 1958. 'The°.

school has 58-teachrs and is administered by an appointed

principal. This intermedi.ite school contaihs grades six,

seven and eight. Classes are departmentalized and hetero-N---

geneously grouped,P

Approximately 98% of the schoOt°pOpulation is Mexican

American, 1% is Black, and 1% Anglo American. About one

third of the population is from a lower class background,

living primarily in government housing. Another third ofti

...the school is of a lower middle class status, and the re-

maining third of the population is classified as middle

middle class. For the majority of the-stAdents, Spanish is0

-Jr\ the dOminant language.

School C. This-school was constructed in 1972. The

school has 11 teachers and is admplistered by an appointed

principal. This intermediate schoO includes grades six,

seven, and eight. Classes are departmentalized and hetero-

geneously grouped.

Like school A, this school is also in a socio-economi-

tally mixed area: About 25% of the children come from an.

upper class background.

is classified as middle

class status, living in

Some-60% of the school population

Class, and about 15%-is ofa lower

governmental housing.

00106.(10

o

93

The influence of the'United States Army is strong in

thid geographic area which hoUses a large number .of army re-

lated,

people.

o School D. This school was constructed in 1958. The,.

school has 47 teabhers and is administered by an appointed

prncipal. This elementary-intermediate school includes

grades k-8. Classes are departmentalized and classes are

-heterogeneously iqrduped. .

\

The socio-economic status of the area varies from middle

class to lower class. Approximately 50% of the,scflool.popu-

lation is Anglo-American and th4 remaining 50% Mexican

American.

School E. This school was constructed over'504-

.

°

ago. OKiginally this was one of the city's oldest hi41.1

schools. Two years ago it became an intermediate school.

The school ha's 47 'teachers and i.administerefl by..4h ap-

I

.pointed principal. 'This intermediate school includes grades

seven, eight, and nine. Classes are departmentaliZed and

heterogeneously grouped':

The school population is almost100% Mexican=American.

Most of the student's come frdm a-low socio-economic back-.

ground. Spanish is the dominant language for most, if not,.

all, of the school population. diivernment housing is concen--

trated in this,school's geographic location.

j

06107

Characteristics of the TeaOlers in the Study

94

Five grade seven teachers from the El Paso Independent

School District particIpatdin this study. The biographic

teacher 9haracteridtics data inA.hisisection was collected,' 6

from each teacher by the use of a questionnaire an& is sum-

marized in Table The judgments of teacher behavior by

.the investigator are baSed on frequent but informal observa-

Lions of teacher al.6 pupil classroom interactions.

Teacher A: This teacher was 31 years old, male, and

had six years teaching dxperience. He held a Bachelor ofS

Arts degree in -history and an M. Ed., plus 30 semester hours0

beyond the M. Ed. He repotted that he had completed 6

semester hours in geography. --"Thl.s teacher taught seven sec--

tions of seventh grade social studies., .

This teacher had excellent discipline in.hdclassroom.

Both teacher and student expectations appeared to be cleairlyft

defined and understood by each, side. The teacher maintained

good rapport with the students and interacted with them very

'frequently throughott the experimental study. A very pleas7c-

ant classroom atmosphere prevailed whenever the researcher ,

. .

obse0rved thiS teacher and his classes./

Teacher B. This teacher was,also 31'ydars old, male, 1

., ...,and had four,years teaching. experience. He held a Bachelor

i1

.

of.Science degree in Education1

with a major in Secondary¢

'education. He had completed nine semester hour's in geogra-

phy. This teacher taught six sections of seventh grade

------4"------.:\/

social studies.

k 00108

9

-Table 3'.4

Teacher Characteristics Summary Table

E7

e

Teacher

.-.

Age

Sex

o

°. Years

-Teaching

Experience

'

Degree.

Hours in

Geography

No:Lof

'Claspet

Taught

Classroom

AVerage

Number

'

of Pupils

IDer'Class

,

,B

.

C

_

D

"E

'31

31,

30-,

25

:

M, M F

,

-

Fc

4

0p

J.. :

6 40 1

...

4

f.")(Hisfory)

.

. B.A.

M.

-

B.S.Ed.

B.S.Ed.

. B.S.Ed.

,

B.S.Ed.

_ -

(s'

-6

-

-

.

3

.

3

.6 -

,.

,

%

.

3 6 3. ,

%. 6

'

Cdfttrol

oriented

Control

oriented

Freedom

oriented

.

Control

oriented

Control

.

oriented,

-

t

.

32 28

-

29 34

23

,

-'

/

I o0,

)

/

a.

eo

r-

a

,96

This teacher also had excellent classroom discipline.

Students were always observed in their seats and appeared to

be working through the unit the entire period. This teach-1

er's classes were generally very quiet and with less student-.

teacher interaction taking place than with teacher.A.A

'Teacher C. his teacher was 30 years of age, female,

and had.five years teaching experience. She held a Bachelor

of Arts Degree in Elementary Education. She reported that.

she had completed three semester hours in geography. She

taught three sections of seventh grade social studies.

Disciiaine in this classroom appeared to be somewhat

more lax than the class mentioned above. A considerable

4

number of informal student to student interactions were evi-

denced by the researcher. However, this acher very fre-

quently worked with individual students an their problemsa

width the unit text.

Teacher D. This teacher was 33 years of age, female,

and had one year of teaching experience. She held a Bach-,

elor of Science degree in Elementary Education. She reported

that she had completed nine semester hours of geography.

She taught six sections of seventh grade social studies.

T is,teacher averaged the largest numbet,of stud6nts

per class, approximately 34 pupils. 'Conditions in her class-.

room appeared somewhat crowded in comparison with any of the

other classrooms. Classroorti discipline appeared satisfao-o

tory in each of this teacher's classes. This teacher

001-10

97

constantly interacted with her students througho the experi-

mental study pnd appeared to have developed good rapport with

her pupils.P

.

° Teacher E. This teacher was 25 years old, female, and

had four years teaching experience. She held a 1Bachelok of_

. Science degree in Secondary Ed'ucation. She reported that she

.had completed three semester hours in geography. She taught

five classes of social studies.

The teacher averaged p students per class, the lowest

number of all other teachers. She maintained very good dis-

cipline and was ableto keep close track of-each pupil's

progress. She also interacted with students frequently as

they proceeded through the unit text. Students remained in

their 'seats while she generally worked her way from one pupil

to another.

Summary of Contextual Variables

The five participating schools were similar in 4arganiza-.

tion, administration, and plant facilities. The sAools

differed, however, in student population. The population of

two schools was predothinantly Mexican American. In one,

softo-economic status was approximately 75% lower and 25%

middle class. Students of the second school Were also from

a lower or middle.class background. The pominant language

fors both school iDopulations is Spanish. This means that

children generally speak English in the classroom and with

their teachers where subject matter is concerned. However,

00111

A

98

students opeak panish t one another in most informal inter-.

acti*ns both inside and outsideof the class'. om. The hoie

language is*Spanish.

In the three remaining schools, the Mexican Americans

are a minority. Anglo students adinprise about 50% of the

population in each of the three schools. Most interactions

between an Anglo American and a Mexican American child re-

quire.that the latter speak English rather than Spanish.itt

V

Most Angl children in these schools do not speak_ Spanish

fluently enough to converse in the,language. Mexican

American students in these sch lo tend to be more bicultural

than thos6 students in tie predominantly Mexican American

schools.

Eight classes from predominantly Mexican American

schools participated in the experimental study. The remain-. 0

ing 16 classes were from mixed schools where approximately

one half of the student body was Mexican American and the

other half. Anglo. When class means were rank ordered for all

24 classes according to the- word meaning section of the Iowa

Tests of Basic Skills:. Form.6, Level 13, the classes from

the two pfedominantly Mxic,in American schools occupied the

bottom eight positions, or bottom third, of th range. The

mean of this .bottom third was 16.85 on the word meaning

test, a grade equivalent of 5.5, while the mean of the other

16 classes was 21.99, a grade equivalent of 6.7. Therefore,

the mean vocabulary equivalent of the predominantly Mexitan

00112

0

/,99

7

-*Amer.-Jean schools was slightly Over a year beh nethe predomi-

nantly Anglo'ochools (Table 3.5).

The observed differences between/the hree treatment

.groups regarding the peronal attributes f the teachers and

individual school characteristicS-wer; d emed'to be minor.

ecause of the random assignment o el ses to treatment;P

classes from the pre(Wminantly Mexican American schools were

distributed *mss treatments. Thus, the investigator con-)

A eluded that there were no contextual ariables, other than

treatment, that accounted f r observed -differences between'

the three treatments on the posttest. Table 3.6 shows the

distribution of classes across treatments by ethnic groups.

The next two parts of this chapter relate the technical

aspects of the .experimental research.

Experimqntal Design

A 3 x 3 fully crossed analysis of variance (AMM) for

each criterion measure was employed with the posttest data

of this study. This design is shown in Table 3.7. The

same design was used for all three dependent variables. To

avoid needless repetition of the design, only one experi-

mental layout is shown with achievement as the dependent,

variable.

Random fosignment of Classes to Treatment Groups

There were two steps in tile 'randomization process.'

First, the,24 classes were randomly assigned to one of three

J

Table S . 5

a.

Vocabulary Levels Across Two Types of Schools'

Type of School

.

No..-of

Schools

NoClasses,

Class ;.&ans

on Word

Meaning Test

Grade

Equivalent,

Predominantly Mexican

American Population

8

--

.

.16.85.

t

.

.5

Mixedbp..ulatilma,

,,

50% Anglo'Americin

50% Mexican American '

.

3

,

16

,21.99

4

6.7

0

1

O

101

A

Table 3.6

Distribution of Classes Across Treatment

by Ethnic Groups

'44

EthnicGroup

90%CriteriopGroup

,80%CriterionGroup

70%Criteri

.

onGroup

PredominantlyMexicanAmerican

40

a

,

.

4.,

a..,

2

.

Mixed' -.

McicanAmericanand Anglo,American

.

5 4 6 5

`.

-9

-

1'

00115

I

1/4.

\102s

Table 3:7

Experimental Layout (ANOVA)

t T1 -90% -80%.

T 70%.

C1-8- C9 -16

c17-24 . ,

Y.111

?.121Q Y

.131t.1.1

A. , Y.211 Y.221 Y.231 ;. Y.2:1

A3 Y.311if ._,,

.321Y.331

Y.3.1 '

Y Y

Independent Variables:

TreatmentVocabulary Levels

Dependent Variable:

Achievement

T represents treatments: t.= 3A represents vocabulary leiras: a.= 3C represents classes: c = 24

..31

Subscript Order: classes, vocabulary levels,treatment, measure

006116

0,

0.0

103

treatment groups. Treatment was then randomly assilned to

the groups. The first treatment group wastpachieve,t0the

90% criterion level; the second treatment group to the 80%

criterion level; and the third group to the 76% criteridn'

- level.

A treatment by blocks design was adopted for,examinirig,

the effect of mastery learning on students of varying apti7

tudes, especially lower ability students. Aptitude, as

measured by a vocabulary test, was selected as the blocking

* variable.-

his relatede,brief in

literature.

The reason for using a treatment_by blocks design

to the premises of mastery learning,, discussed ,

. -

the introductory chapter and the review of. the

An explicit premise of mastery learning is that

feedback-corrective procedures are instructional teqhniques

which raise thlevel of achievement of lower performing

pupils in traditional instruction. This premise,ae previ-

ously noted', tends to-emphasize the factors of the environ-

ment, over what happens in the instructional situation, and

to ignore the characteristics a learner brings t) instruc-

tion. 'am psychological literature has repeatedly demon-

strated that pupil aptitude.rather than the type of

ds more important in coghitive achievement (Duchastel

Merrill, 1973; Oswald & eletc1er,'197011Dalis, 1970; Mer-

rill & Towle, 1972; Duffy, 1972). The treatment by)plocks

design permits the researcher in mastery learning to aTcer-

.tain if mastery procedures eliminate learning for the lower

00117

\

104

aptitude student. When aptitude is measured by a vocabulary

test, as in this study.

Students-were administered. the word meaning section of

the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills: Form 6, Level 13 on the

first'day ofthe treatment. A subsequent analysis of vo-

cabulary'achievement across criterion level of treatment rb-,

vealed a homogeneity of group means Ji'able 3.8). The sub-,

jects were rank ordered\by qlass on the basis of the

concomitant' score and then divided into three blocks: a

high, middle, or low block. The designated ranges permitteda

a

a minimum of three individual scores per classroom to fall

within each vocabulary level except for the high vocabulary

group in one classroom which contained only two scores

(rande,3.9). A discussioh of, how the vocabulary-ranges were1

determined

Distribution'of Students by Treatment and

Vocabulary Level

Five teachers and ytotal of 24 seVenth grade classes

with 734 students participated in the study. The number of

students within classes were classified by vocabulary level

and criterion level in Table 3.9. Not all 734 students wereoil

used in the data analysis. .Thirty-four students were

omitted from the data analysis for one of three reasons: (1)

prolonged absences from school, (2) withdrawal from school

prior to the completion of the study, and (3) late enroll-

ment into school after the study was almost Completed.

0011

Table 3.8

Mean Vocabulary Achievement SCores4

by Treatment Groups

105

1 T1

'90%pronCrkii

T2

80%Criterion

T 3

. 70%Criterion

VocabularyMeans

.

, 21.35-

21.66 21.79

t

voila

4

Table 3.9

Number of Students by.V06abplaxy,Level/Ciese,,

hand Treatmer4

N

"."

t14 U

Class

12

High

14

Middle

(2)

16

Low

511 (2)

0 -ri P

Aas

14

00

01 0

CO

4-) -ri14 U

Class

910

High.

14

Middle

Low

16

5

(N = 734-34 = 700)

t'

3.

57

4 ' 08

.Percentage

TotaX

of Total

13

18

34

79

-

11,.

810 (2)

11

863

'.9

11 (1)

.12

.(2)

7

(2)

16

,

(1)

13 (2)

16 (3)

91

14.

11

12

13

14

15

_' 16

11

12

8

(1)

11

572

10

12'

11 (2)

.14

73

10

511 (2)

a(2)

f. '12

16

15

(2)

90


o. 0

_04

dP 1

4 0

<0

a)

0N

. 4-)

14 r.1

Class o .17

18

19

20

High

.11

21

12

11

Percentage

22.

23

24 -.0.Total

of Total

b

,9

93.

Middle

516 (1)

7 ay.

4

12

13 (1)

.14

14

19 (1)

1213)

102

total

700

15

,1*

ca

Numbers within

()indiCate those students omitted from the data analysis

of excessive absence, late enrollment, or withdrawal from school.

Of the 34-students dropped from the data.analysis,°

or 27%4 were in the.uppei:andimiddrekocabulary groups, whil

24, or 73%, were fro* the low group: These figures point.up

jle fact that frequently corrective prdures cannot 'OPer-.

'ate because the subjects fOr whom they are intended are mdto

in-

n school where, they can benefit from such instruction.

Vocabulary Scores, Grade Equivalent,

and Nati nal Percentile Rank

.V'Ocabulary achievement was the concomitant variable

used in this study. The mean reading,dcores_for students '

distributed by treatmnt; class and vocabulary level are

given in t'able'3.10. Tables

mean achievement, retention,

3.11, 3.12, and 3.13 give they,,z

and attitude toward .the unitj,

scores by,treatment class, and vocabulaik. The sample popu-

laA.on was extremely heterogeneous, with a reading range

equikralerit,of 1.8 for the lowest to 11.9 for the highest

group. 'Grade quivalent ranges by-group were: high, to

11.9; middle, 6.1 to 7.2; and low, 1.8 to 5.8 as shown in

Table 3.14.

The grade equivalent scores translated into national

percentile ranks indidae that 'the mean score of the high1

vocabulary group Wap equivalent to the 64 percentile rank,

the mean score of the middle vocabulary group was..equivalent

to the 28 percentile,rank, and the mean score of the low

vocabulary group was equivalent to the 5 pei-bentile rank

(Table 3:14). The majority of students used in this study,

00122

Table 3.10

Mean ReadiigeScores and Grade

Equivalents by Treatment

Cla'ss, and Vocabuliry LeVel

.(48 items).

Class

'1

7otal

G.E.

1

H28.8

31,8

33.5

29.1

30.1

32.3

30.0

29.8

(130.7

8.2

90%

M20.9

21.2

21.0

21..1

''20.5

20.4

20.3

20.0.

20.7

-6..5

L13.8

12.3

11.6

'12.2

12.4

13.0

13.8

12.7

12.7

4.2

.,

Class

910

13

14

16

Total

G.E.

H3-2-. -5

30.4

30.7

33.6

30.9

31.1

30.8

;28.6

31.1

8.4

80%

M21.3

20.9

21.4

19.6

22.6

20.5

20.6

21.7

'21.0

6.7

,

L12.6

13.0

14:8

10.8

12.7

13.6

13.4 1

11..7

12.8

44.2-,

Class

17'

18.

19

20

'21-

22

'23

24

.Total-

G.E.

70%

M L

29.0

35.1

30.6

33.4

30.3

31.9

32.3-

28.2

31.4

..

8.4

21.4

20.3

21.0

20.8

:22.1

20.2

220

21.8

21.2r

6,7

- .

,

'

12.6

12.6

13.2

12.2

lig

13.7

13.5

q

13.3

11.3

,U=4,

,S

12.8,

4.2

°

O tiC

°

Table 3.11

Mean Achievement Scores by Treatment, Class

and Vocabulary Level

(50 test items)

Class

24

8,

Total

.

33.0

48.5

7

37.8

29.5

30.8

34.3

-

38.3

35.0

- 3447

90%

M34.1

33.0

27.1

'.27.8-

16.1

.26.7

30.1

-22.5

27.2

L17.6

17.1

18.3

20.'6

19.7

20.1

24.4

21.9

20.0

Class

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Total

H36.0

33:2

35.4

39.0

34.3

.34.6

30.9

28.2

34.0

80%

M29.0

28.9

16.5

23:6

33.0

25.6

21..9

29.2.

27.2

-

-

L19.6,

22.6

18.8

17.8

,25.0

17.9

20.2

17.1

19.9

Class

17

18

1920

21

22

23

24

Total

H33.5

42.6

34.0

46.8

30.5

30.9

32.3

31.8

34.1

70%

M23.6

27.7.

28.6.

27.8

19.4,

21.2

31.8

27.9

-26.0

_L

22.5

'16.4

21.8

17.3

18.2

.18.4

19.7

23.2

19.7

Table 3.12

'

Mean Retention Scores by Treatment, Class, and VocabularyLevel

(50 test items)

Class

12

36

78

Total

.H

30.8

35.6

36.2

29.'

-

29.,7

31.3

34.7

32.8

32.9

90%

M26.9

-_25.8

23.5

26.7

.-16.9

26.0

-

29.9

21.8,

24.7

L18.8

-

15.7

17.3

18.9

17.4

19.3

22.5'

21.3

18.9

Class

10

11

12'

13

15

16

Total

T,

H35.5

31,9

32.2

37.5

36.6

33.2'

'30.7

26.2

33.0

80%

M24.7

26.3

26.9

23.3

31.6

24.0

21.4

25.8

.25.5

L18.3

_24.6

23.0

18.3

21.6

16.8

,18.3

16.1,

19.6

Class

17

18.

19

20

.21

22

23.

24

Tbtal

H31.8.

39.9

32.2

34.4

32.8

30.8

29.7

30.6

32.8

70%

M19.5

27.5

27.8

30.4

21.9

18.8

31.0

27.0

'

25.5:

L'

18.6

17.0

21.0

.16.3

17.8

18.9

17.8

17.3

1 .1

Table 3.13

Mean Attitude Toward the Unit Score

by Treatment, Classl-and VdoabularyL vet

(17 items)

Class

37

Tot

al

H

90%

M

6.8

6.8

7.8

a 6

7.5

7.4

7-.1

7.6

'

7.5

.. 6,3

7.8

-7.2

6.a

7.0

7.7'

7.6.

7.2

,

7.2

7.2

-7,4

7.3

7.2

7'0

6.8

7.0

,

7.0

7.1

Class

910

11

Al2

..13

14

1516

Total

H7.7

7.8

7.1

7.8

7.2

7.1

T7.$

80%

i6,9

,6.2

i

7.

7A

-1.9

6.8

7.9

6 8°

7.2

L7.2

6.3

5.9

6.9

7.5.

7.1

.7.1

7.'4

6.9"

Class

17

18

19

20

,22

23:

'Total

H6.7

y

' 7.9

7.4

7.7

7.6

7.3.

7.6

7.4

70%

N,

6.3

7.5

8.0

7.4

7.1

6.9

7,9

-7.7

7.4

L1.1

7.1

6.

7.2

/6.9'

7.0

7.2

7.6

7.1

,

Table 3.14

Mean Reading Scores, Grade Equivalent, and

tlational

Percentile Rank for Vocabulary_ Groups

A

Vocabulary

Level

N = 734

$ of

Sample

Mean, ..

Score

Grade

Equivalent°

Percentile

Rank

Grade Equi'

agent Rang

..

High

218

.30

31.04

-(-

8.'4

64

7.4 to 11.

Middle

208

.28

20.98

6.5

28

6.1 to 7.2

.

Low

308

.42

12.79

.4.2

51.8 to 5.8

._

C

V

theteforei fell below the national norm for v*cabutkary as

measured by the word meaning section #f the Iowa Tests of

Basic Skills: Form 6, Level 13:

Unit of Statistical Analysis

The group within the class was,selected as the unit of

statistical analysis because an important purpose f this

study was to determine how studetits of varying vocabularya

V

ability, especiall3Alower antitude stddents, performed under

differential criterion levels. Aptitude na measured by a

vocabulary test. Three vocabulary groups, high, middle, and

' low, were determined for each class on the basis of individ-

ual scores on the word meaning section Of the Iowa Tests ofa

Basic Skills; Form 6, Level. 13. These vocabulary groups,.

three per class, were subsequently employed as the unit of

statistical analysis, providing a total of 72 groups for the

data ahalysis.

Statistical Procedures

A 3 x 3 fully crossed analysis of variance (ANOVA) wa.g,

used with the achievement, attitude, and retention mean scores

as criterion measures. This experimental design was used to

determine if the class means on each of the three, measures dif-

fered significantly flp\<-- .05) across treatments. The computer

program usedin the above data analyses was the BMD 12V pro-.

gram (Biomedical Computer Programs, 1973).

00128

e.

V.

°

t,

115

Statement of the Statistical H othesess.

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect

f three criterion mastery levels on achievement, attitude,

and retention of seventh grade students using a geography in-

structional unit. T acc mplish this purpose, the following

statistical hypotheses were tested at the .05 level of sig-

nificance. The'subscript order is class, vocabulary level,

treatment, and measure.

Achievement: Main Effects of Treatment

Ho'

hi ...11 = P..2I P..31

This statistical null hypothesis slates that thbre are

no statistical differences among achievement means across

treatments. This statistical hypothesis was tested against

the two-tailed alternative hypothesis that:

H1. P..11 r P..31

This non-Airectional,hypothesis states that there are

statistical' differences among achievement means across treat-

meats.

Achievement: Main Effects of Vocabulary Level

Ho'

P.1.1 = P.2.1 = P.3.1

This statistical null hypothesis states that there are

no statistical differences among vocabulary groups on the

. mean posttest. scores. This statistical hypothesis was tested

against the two-tailed alternative hypothesis that:

.H1

: P.1.1 0 P.2.1 P.3.10

-00129

116

This nondirectional hypothesis states that there are ,

statistical differences among vocabulary groups.

4

Achievement: Interaction

Hoeu .111 - u

.121 ..131

u.211

u .221 - u .231

.311 - u.321= u.331

This null hypothesis, States that'on the achievement meas-

ure the interaction of treatment and vocabulary levels is a

mull interaction. This statistical hypothesis was tested

against the two-tailed alternative hypothesis that:

H U.111 - U.121 - U.131

.211 - U.221 P.231 0

P.311 P.321-- P.331.

This nondirectional hypothesis states that on the achieve-

ment measure the interaction of treatmentand vocabulary lev-

els is not a null interaction.

- The hypotheses for the analysis of variance for each of

the remaining effects measures followed the same format. It

was-not necessary .to state each set of hypotheses because of

4

the repetition involved. Therefore, the same hypotheses were

applied to the measures of retention and attitude.

Significance Level

This study used the .05 significance level in testing

the null hypotheses. This means that a difference as or

Larger than the obtained one could occur by chance as fre-

quently as five times out of 100. 'Therefore, the probability

00130

117

of rejecting a true statistical hypothesis (,Type I error) is'

.05 (Myers, 1966).

A Type IT error Is'the failure to reject a false hypothe-

sis. The relationship betwten the Type I error and Type II

error isAmverse. By decreasing the probability of a Type I

error, the reseatchqf increases the probability bf a type II

error. The selection of a significance level, therefore, re-

.flects a compromise between the relative importance of the

two types of errors (Myers, 1966).

The power of a statistical test is defined as 1-0, or

the probability of rejecting a statistical hypothesis when it

is false and should be rejected: If alpha (Type I error) is,

held constant, the power of, the significance test can be in

creased.by increasing the number of observations in the sam-

ple. Therefore, ifpower is increased, the probability of 0n

(Type II) is deCreased (Edwards, 1968). The .05 level was

used in this study because it is appropriate to the moderate

size of the N utilized, '.N = 72 as indicated in Tables

3.10, and 4.1. It represents an adequate balance between the

.01 level if the individual (N = 734) had served as the unit

of analysis or the ;10 level if the class (N'= 24) had been

used.

Limitations of the Study

This section discusses three principal limitations of

this study that affected its ext_)knal and internal validity.

One limitation, related to the study's external validity,

was the use of an available pool of seventh grade students

00131

A"

0 .

118/

in 24 classes of the El Paso Independent School District.

This population could not be considered representative of

. the national population. The subjects were below the nation-

al averages in vocabulary knowledge as measured by the. Iowa

Tests of Basic Skills: Form 6, Level 13/ Iw'addition the

ethnic composition of the sample did not folloW national

ratios. In the present study more than 50% of the students

were Mexican American.'

A second limitation, also related to the external valid-.

-ity of the study, was the lack bf control, for the language

variable. Those Mexican American students for whom English

is a secdnd language were not excluded from the experiment

or data analysis, but treated as low ability students on the

basis of their scores on-the vocabulary test.

The first two limitations described relate to the low

aptitude characteristics of the sample, as measured by the

concomitant variable. Nevertheless, the sample was appro-

priate for a study of mastery learning investigating the re-

lationsh4 of different criterion levels and aptitude on

achievement, retention, and attitude.

The third limitation of the study, related to the in-.

ternal validity of the study, was the lack of systematic

observations made in the participating classes during the

treatment 'period to ensure that mastery procedures were be-

ing followed. Oral directions were provided, to all teach-'

ers prior to the beginning of the treatment; and each

teacher was given written directions, a time schedule to

00132

119

follow,. and a textbook and an answer boCklet. The 'investi-

gator made frequent visits to all participating schools

every week. These procedures strengthen the assumption that

the teachers and students followed the instructions outlined,7ZO,

but the degree to'which individual teachers and students may

have deviated from established procedures cannot be deter-

mined.

The next chapter will provide the results of the study

and a discussion of the findings.

00133

CHAPTER TV

RESULTS AND 'DISqUSSiON OP THE FINDINGS

4

The present study did riot produce evidence supporting the

hypothesis that a higher criterion level facilitated learning

of materials1at the seventh grade level. Analysis of vari-

,

ance was used to test the statistical hypotheses .of this

study.1' Geography posttest and delayed posttest achievement 4

q-

and attitude toward the treatment were dependent variables.

Vocabulary knowledge, as measured by the Iowa Tests of Basic

Skills: Form 6, Level 13 was used as a blocking variable.

The statistical hypothesis that there was no statieti-'

sally significant difference (p < .05) among the treatment

groups achieving to the 94%, 80%, or 70% criterion levels was

tested at two time intervals: op the 15thiday by a posttest

after 14 days of instruction and three weeks later by a de-

wy,layed posttest. An attitude scale as also administered the

same day as the posttest.

Presentation of the Findings

-Nine hypotheses were tested. The hypotheses were. stated\

in the null form and the probability level for the testing of

hypotheses was established at the .05 level of significance.

The findings for each of the nine stated hypotheseb are

120

0014

121'

discussed briefly in this section, 4 more detailed explana-

tion is offered in the second part ofo this c hapte;, Discus-

sion of the Findings.f

Hypothesis I Treatment and Geography Achievement

Ho

: 1 There is no significant difference in meanachievement across the three treatment levels.

4 This study sought to determine whether there existed a

significant difference in mean posttest achievement, among

those students who were required to attain'a 90 %, 80%, or 70%

criterion level throughout a learning unit. The computed F

ratio to test this null hypothesis was .non-significant (Table

4.1). A higher criterion level did not facilitate learning

more than a lower criterion lever; for example4 Table 4.,2,;,

shows that mean: achievement for the three treatment groups

was similar.

Hitothesis II 'Vocabulary Level an& Geography Achievement

H - 2 These is no si4nifitree

in meano'achievement across the ree vocabularylevels.

o.

This hypothesiS states that there will be no significant

difference in mean achievement among high) medium, and low vo-

cabulary groups on the posttest geography scores. The cgin-

puted F ratio for vocabulary effect was significant (Table

4.1). Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejecteckand

the alternative hypothesis was accepted that there are

differences in achievement among the three levels of vo-

cabulary. The data analysis indicated a highly significant

00135

Table 4.1f

Analysis of Variance for Treatment,

VocabularY Devel, and Interaction -

Achievement Posttest

Source ofVariation

Total

VocabularyLevel

Tredtment

Degrees ofFreedom.

Treatment-Vocabulary-

Level

Replications/Treatment XVocabulary

71

63

Sums ofSquates

24724.24

563.55

445.

84223.04

MeanSquares-

4682.85

123623.12

281'.77

112.42

'1336.87

F Ratio

92.472*

0.211

. as 4

* Indicates F ratio that. is significant at the .001 level..

00136

o

O O 4.1

ski

AChievement Mead Scores by Treatment and Vocabulary Level

T1

T3

Row

Marginals

90% Criterion

Group

80% Critdrion

Group

70% Criterion

Group

High

Vocabulary

Group

'

FE

.... 34.58

i =

3.36

= 33.94

s =

3.27

'

R =,34.04

s =

3.9.7

34.19

4

Middle

'

Vocabulary

Group

'

x

)7 = 27.19

s =

5.80

Y = 27.20

s =

3.52

X . 25.98

s'=

4.15

.

26.79

Low

Vocabulary

Group .

-

X = 19.95

s =

2.39

X = 19.88

s =

2.6.9

'

4

3f = 19.69

s =

2.52

.

'

...

-

19.84

Column

Marginals

a

.-

-

27.24.

.

27.01

1

.

26.57

.

a

difference at the .001 level. High vocabulary students

achieved significantly higher than middle vocabulary.students;

middle'vocabulary students achieved significantly higher than

low vocabulary students. Previous knowledge, as measured by

vocabulary, was a stronger factor in student achievement

than the attainment of dLfferential criterion levels through-

out the unit. As indicated in Table 4.2, achievement means

across vocabulary levels for the high; medium, and low groups6

a.

were *49; 26,79; and 19.84, respectively.

Hypothesis III Interaction of Treatment

and Vocabulary Levels on the Achievement

Measure

Ho

3 *Mere is no significant interaction betweentreatment and vocabulary levels.

The computed F ratio for interaction results was non-

significant. Vocabulary and treatment did not act together

to create a greater effect on student achievement than

. either of the main effects, treatment and vocabulary, taken

into account separately. The interaction effect is the ex-

perimental effect created by the 'combination of treatment

and vocabulary over and above any effects' associated with

treatment and vocabulary considered separately.

Hypothesis IV Treatment and Geography Retention

Ho

: 4 There is no significant difference in mean.'retention across the three treatment levels.

This hypothesis sought to determine whether there ex-

isted a significant difference in mean delayed posttest

00138

125

achievement among those student who were required to attain

a 90%, 80%, or 70% criterion level throughout the learning

unit. The computed F ratio to test the null hypothesis was

non-significant (Table 4.3). The attainment of a,higher cri-

terion level°did not facilitate retention more than a 1pwer4

level. As indicated in Table 4.4, the mean achievement score

is the same for the 90% criterion level and the 70% criter-

ion level, a finding consistent with the achievement measure

noted previously.

Hypothesis V Vocabulary Level and Retention

Ho: 5 There is no significant difference in meanretention across the three vocabulaty levels.

his hypothesis states that there will be no significant

di#erehipe in mean retention along high, medium and-low vo-

cabulary groups on the delayed posttest geography scores.

The computed F ratio for vocabulary effect, was highly sig-

nificant at the .001 level (Table 4.3). Therefore, the null

hypothesis was rejected and the alternate hypothesis was ac-

cepted that there are differenceS in retention among the

three vocabulary levels. High vocabulary students achieved

significantly higher than middle vocabulary students; middle,

vocabulary students achieved significantly higher than low

vocabulary students. Previous knowledge, as measured by vo-

cabulary, was a stronger factor in student achievement than

were differential criterion levels. Table 4.4 indicates the

significantly different'mean retention scores, across vocabu-

lary levels.

00

4

126

Table 4.3

Analysis Of Variance for Treatment,

vocabulary Zevel, and Intraction

Achievement Delayed Posttest

Source ofVariation .

Degrees of-Freedom

MeanSquares

anSquares

,

P Ratio

Total

VocabularyLevel

Treatment

Treatment XVocabulary

Level

Replications/Treatmdnt XVocabulary

71

- 2

2

4

63

299811.84

231964.96

'649.71

754.47.

,

66442.24

4222.70

115982.48

324.85o

. 188.74

1054.63

109.94*

0.30

0.17

CI

--go Test

* Significant at .001 level.

00- 40

Table 4.4

Retention Mean'Scores by Treatment and Vocabulary Level

-

Row

Marginals

90% Criterion

Group

80% Criterion

Group

70

Criterion

Group

-High

Vocabulary

G up

5f. = 32.52

Ns

=2.68

k"'= 32.96

s =

3.64

32.75

Middle.

Vocabulary

Group

If= 24.67

s =

3.96

le= 25.49

s = 3.01

os4.

77252l

Low

Vocabulary

Group

2'= 18.88

s =

2.20

2'= 19.63

s =

3.06

.

18.86

Column

Marginals

25.36

8

26.03

4,3

128

Hypothesis VI Interaction f Treatment and

Vocabillarlj"elsolionMeasureH 6 There is no significant interaction be-e,' tween treatment and vocabulary levels.

The computed P ratio for interaction results was non-\

significant (Table 4.3). Vocabulary and treatment did not

act together to create a greater effect upon student rten-

tion than either of the main effects, vocabulary and.treat-

ment, taken into account separately.

Hypothesis VII Treatment and Attitude

Ho

: 7 There is no significant difference inposttest mean attitude scores across

' ) the three treatment levels.

This hypothesis sought to determine whether there ex-

fisted a significant difference in mean attitude among those

students who were required to attain a 90%, 80%, or 70% cri-

terion level throughout the learning unit. The computed F

ratio to test the null hypothesis was non-significant (Table

4.5). Attitude toward-the Unit was not affected by the re-O

quired criterion level (Table 4.6). The attitude scale

represented a continuum ranging from a very positive dispo-

sition toward the subject, represented by a value of 10.3,

to a very negative disposition toward the subject, repre-

sented by a value of 0.6. As indicated in Table 4.6, the

three treatment groups sustained a relatively high attitude

toward the unit: T1and T

3averaged 7.3, and T

2averaged

7..1, indicating little, if any, difference among treatment

groups.

Q0142

129

Table 4.5

Analysis of Variance for Treatment,

Vocabulary Level, and Interacti n -

Attitude Posttest

Source ofVariation

Degrees ofFreedom

--

MeanSquares

MeanSquares

-F Ratio

Total 71 332482.40 4682.85

VocabularyLevel 2 144.08 72.04 2.95

Treatment 2 33.25 16.62 0.68

Treatment XVocabulary'

Level 4 . 25.66 6.41 0.26

Replications/Treatment XVocabulary 63 1539.00 24.42'

,

No Test

00143

Table 4.6

Attitude Mean Scores by

Treatment and Vocabulary Level

T1

T2

T3

Row

Marginals

90% Criterion

Group

80% Criterion

Group

70% Criterion

.Group

High

Vocabulary

Group

X = 7.5

-

s =

.6

X = 7.3

s =

.4

X = 7.4-

s =

.5

7.4

Middle

Vocabulary

Group

X = 7.2

s =

.5

R = 7.1

s =

.7

3E= 7.4

s =

.6

7,2

Low

Vocabulary

Group

R = 7.1

s =

.2

.X. = 6.9

s =

.6

57: =

.1

s =

.2

7.1

Column

Marginals

7.3

7.1

7.3

..

0

131

Hypothesis VIII Vocabulary Level and Attitude

Ho

: 8 'There is no significant difference inpOsttest mean attitude scores across thethree vocabulary levels.

This hypothesis states that there will be no significant

difference in mean attitude among high, medium, or low vocabu-

lary groups on the posttest Attitude Toward Any Subject scale

scores. The computed F ratio for the vocabulary effect was

non-significant (Table_4.5). Students belonging to the high,

middle, or low vocabulary level groups did not differ among

themselves on the attitude scale. Therefore the more strin-

gent 90% criterion level did not result in a less positive

attitude toward the unit than the 80% or 70% levels. Table

4.6 shows the small difference among the high, middle, and

law vocabulary. groups, 7.4; 7.2; and 7.1, respectively.

Hypothesis IX Interaction of Treatment and

Vocabulary Level on the Attitude Measure

Ho

: 9 There is no significant interaction,between treatment and vocabulary levels.

The computed F ratio for interaction results was non-,

significant (Table 4.5). Vocabulary and Treatment did not

act, together to create a greater effect on, student attitude

than either of the main effects, treatment and vocabulary,

taken into account separately.

These three upivariate tests of significance for the

nine hypotheses are summarized in. Table 4.7.

00145

132

Table 4.7

Summary of Univariato Tests of Significance:

Interaction and Main Effects

Statistical ypotheses (Null) rLevel of

Significance

There are no differences:

I. Achievement: mean differencesfor main effects and interac-tion;

1. Main Effects: Treatment2. Main Effects: VocabUlary3. Interaction: Treatment

by vocabulary

II. Retention: mean differencesfor main effects and interac-tion:4.'Main Effects: Treatment5. Main Effects: Vocabulary6. Interaction: Treatment

by Vocabulary

III. Attitude: mean differencesfor main effects and interac-tion;

7. Main Effects: Treatment8. Main Effects: Vocabulary9. Interaction: Treatment

by*vodabulary

0.2192.47

0.08

0.30109.94

'0.17

0.682.95

0.26

N.S..001

N.S.

N.S..001

N.S.

N.S.N.S.

N.S,

00146

133

Discussion of the Findings

The results of this study of mastery learning indicated

no significant difference by treatment level criterion on

the summative measures of achievement, retention, and atti-

tude. Therefore, unlike the finding of Block, higher criter-

ion mastery levels required throughout the unit Population

Growth in the United States and Mexico did not produce high-

er levels of achievement on the summative test. High vo-

cabulary students achieved and retained more of the geography

unit than middle or low vocabulary level students. Middle

vocabulary level students achieved and retained more of/the

geography unit than low vocabulary level stUdents (See Table

4.2).

These findings suggest that differences in achievement

were mostly a function of the aptitude attributed to indi-

vidual students at the beginning of instruction. The data are

congruent with literature dealing with achievement and indi-

vidual differences, indicating that treatment isinot always

a sufficient factor infevery attempt to equalize performance

(Wright, 1967). Notwithstanding the purported provision of

mastery elements of feedback and correction, low aptitude

.students, as measured by mocabulary knowledge, were unable

to overcome their learning difficulties to match higher

aptitude students, even when required to meet ,a high cri-,

terion level on formative exercises.

00141

134

The number of students who attained criteri&in the

geography summative posttest equivalent to the criterion

which had been required on the formative exercises shows that

mastery procedures failed to eliminate differences in achieve-

ment or retention by vocabulary level. These data Pare shown

in Table 4.8 noting the number of students who attained cri-

terion on the summative test and delayed posttest by treat-6

ment and vocabulary level. Table 4.8. also shows that there

was little difference, if any, among mean achieirement, re-

tention, and attitude scores by treatment. tA possible

interpretation of this finding is that there was too little

difference in the corrective exercises among the criterion

levels to make a'significant difference in achievement, re-

tention, or attitude. IS most of the lessons there was only

'a difference of one or two items that had to be answered cor-.

rectly in order to reach criterion. For example, in a

lesson requiring 20 responses, the 90% criterion group had

to answer 18 of the 20 items correctly to reach criterion

and be able to proceed to the next lesson; the 80% group had

to answer 16-correctly; and the 70% group had to answer 14

correctly. On a esson requiring'10 respofises, the 90% group

had to answer 9; he 80%, 8; and the 70%, 7 in order to meet

the prescribed c iterion. Appendix B gives the personal

score logs for each treatment groups, indicating the mini-/

mum number of items to be answered correctly by students to

achieve criterion.

00148

Table 1.8

Number of Students Achieving Criterion on

the Summative Test by

Treatment and Vocabulary Level

and Mean Achievement,

Retention, and Attitude, ,by Treatment.

90%

Criterion Group

80%

Criterion Group

,

70%

Criterion Group

Number Attaining Criterion

on Geography Posttest

by

11 (5%)

27 (12%)

50' (21%)

Vocabulary Level

.H -8; M-2;

L -].

aH-23; M-4;

L-0

H-35; M-12;

L-3

4

Number Attaining Criterion

on the Geography Delayed

6 (3%)

21 (9%)

46 (20%)

Posttest'by Vocabulary

Level

'H-3; M-2;

L-1

H-18; M-3;

L-0

H-31; M-14;

L-1

Mean Achievement Score

.

.

by Treatment

27.24

27.01

26..57

Mean Retention Score

.

by /treatment

25.36

26.03

25.43

Mean Attitude Score by

Treatment*

7.3

7.1

7.3

*'Attitude scale 0.6, representing an extremedislike toward the unit, to 10.3,

representing an extreme liking toward the unit.

136

The significant difference in mean-achigvement, however,

came in terms of vocabulary levelq. Most of the students who

attained criterion oh the geography posttest were high and

middle vocabulary level Students as noted in Table 4.8. Only

four low aptitude students achieved their respedtivecriter-

ion levels. Therefore, feedback and correctipn procedures

failed to eliminate learnihg pioblems of lower aptitude stu-,

dents. Retention findings are consistent with the achieve-

ment findings. Since the required 90% criterion level did

not yield greater'posttest whievement results than the at-

tainment of the minimum criterion, there is no reason to ats-

sume that a significant difference on the retention measure

would result after a three-week delay period 'for administra-

tion of the delayed posttest measure. Therefore, none of

the attained performance levels tended to equalize average

achievement or retention around a high score.

Student attitude, measured Jy the Attitude Toward Any

Sub'ect scale, wars not affected by the differential criter-

ion level. On a scale from 10.3 to 0.6, where 10.3 repre-_

.sents a positive and 0.6 a negative attitude toward the .

subject, al mean of 7.1 for'treatments one and three and 7.3i.

for treatment two, as shown on Table 4.8, indicates a rela-

tively positive attitude toward the subject., Statistically,

the three reatment groups sustained a higher than neutral

attitude toward the unit. The attitude data, however, is

inconsistent with the observational data on pupil attitude

reported by teachers and observed by the investigator in the

00150

137

pilot ttudy. Observational datconfirmed the assumption

that the attainment of the more steingent 90% criterion level

would result in less positive attitude toward the unit than

the 7dkor 80% levels., As.observed by both teachers and the

investigator, the groups that achieved to the 70% or 80% cri-

terion ldvels showed a more positive attitude toward the

treatment because they repeated procedures less. The 90%

level was sordet' es frustrating to students, especially low-

er ability stud nts who reportedly showed a desire to quit.

Some also attempted to skip the,mOre difficult exercises...-

_

Students who failed to attain the 90% criterion level made

comments which indicated a dislike for the procedure because

t4p lesson in its entirety was repeateq, especially when

criterion had almost beet). attained. Mean attitude scores by

vocabulary level as shown in Table 4.6 indicates a small dif-

ference among the three levels, eventhough.the higher the

vocabular4pvel, tDe higher the mean score for that level.

The lack of significant difference may be attributed to

two factors. First, the study was a short-term one that in-,

troduced new materials and procedures to studenti who may not

have overcome the newness of the treatment within the three

week duration of the study. Second, the lack Of control.to

ensure that mastery procedures were strictly adhered to by

students may have contributed to a more positive attitude by

'those who did not, in fact, experience the full impact of

the mastery treatment. Overall, however, teachers. and the

investigator observed that students enjoyed working on the

00151

et

138

unity some taking it home to get ahead. Students often cm-,

mented pobitively about the nature of the materials and the

fact that they could write in their books and keep them..

All of the teachers reported that some low ability students

appeared to do much better with the unit .than with other

types of classwork customarily assigned, even some of those

pupils with a limited command of'the English language. The

frequent reinforcement which these students received was con-0

sidered by the teachers to be a valuable tool in their learn-

ing process.

It has been noted that unit completion time was not

statistically reported because of the constraints'of a lim-

ited time period which did not permit stud nts to complete

the treatment4unit, thereby defeating mastery learning pro-

cedures due to the lack of time. However, data were gathered

to indicate the number of lessons completed by treatment and

vocabulary level.

More students from the 90% criterion group filed to

complete the,unit than pupils from either the 80% or 70%

criterion groups. While about 20% of the total number of

subjects failed to complete the unit, 41% of those assigned

to the ,90% performance level did not complete the unit. Of

those subjects in the 80% and 70% groups, 31% and 28%, re:-

'spectively, did not complete the unit. However, there was

no difference among treatment groups as to the amount of the

unit completed. The amount of the unit completed by sub-.

jects within each of the three treatment groups was

C;4

139

the same, approximately half of the unit's lessons were

finished-.

A significvmt difference did occur, however, in the

number of students who did not complete the unit by vocabu-

lary level. A series of -tests were calculated with, the

mean number of students not completing the unit I9y vocabulary

level. There was a significant difference at the .05 level

between the middle vocabulary group and the low vocabulary

group, as well as the high vocabulary group and the low'vo-

.cabulary group. This finding is consistent with the hypothe-

sis that achieving to high levels of mastery will require

additional time. Table 4.9 shows the approximate number and

percentage of students not completing the unit and the mean

number of lessons Completed by treatment and vocabulary level.

These data point out the dilemma in school instruction with

respect to time needed by lower aptitude students to complete

a learning task. If the lower aptitude students who did not

complete the unit xald been allowed the time they needed to

complete it, woad their achievement have increased as meas-

ured by the posttest?

The findings of this study are contrary to those of

Block (1970) who examined bothCognitive.and affective con-

sequences of four different performance levels--95%, 85%,

75%, and 65%. Even though this is not a comparative study,

Block's findings are pointed out because of the effect

which the use òf differential criterion'levels-hadon meas-

ures common to both studies--achievement, retention, and

00153

Table 4.9

Number and Percentage of Students

Not Completing the UnitaneMean

Number of Lessons Completed

by. Treatment and-Vocabulary

Level

Aptitude

by

Vocabulary

<5,

CD

High

Gq

JP

Middle

Low

.Total

T'

90% Criterion Grou

Number

Not

Completing

Unit

Percent

Not

Completing

Unit

15

10

32

,57

.190

.159

.352

.40

High

Middle

Low

'Total

T3

70% Criterion Grotip

7 8

25 40.

.110

.125,

.243

.28

0-7

T

80% Criterio

Grou

S

X Numb6r

LessonS

Completed

Number

Not

Completing

Unit

Percent

N t

Coupleting

Unit

rl Number

Lessons

C4. mpleted

33

3.042

31

20

11

.151

30

23

31

23

45_,

.32

Total

Percent

29

25

.114

21

29

.145

23

88

:i14

142

.100

4

141

attitude. Block reported that maximal cognitive learning

as measured by achievement, transfer, and-retention was pro-

duced by the group of eighth graders achieving to the 95%

mastery level on a unit ,of matrix algebra. However, the long

run effects n interest and attitude were negative. Maximal

interest and attitudes ,were produced by those attaining the

prescribbd 55% mastery level. The same group achieved only

slightly less than optimal cognitive learning.

The exclusion of 15 subjects from Block's data analy-

sis is important to note.- He reports that sump students

were omitted from the analysis because bf'their reluaLncp

to participate in the study. The ep.usionof such individ-

uals from the data analysis gives spurious results that need

careful interpretation. In addition, Block's control group

received instruction not representative of the typical class-

room. Students in the control group were given the pro-

grammed text, told to study it with no further reinforcement,

and given the formative test. Control group procedures such

as those in Block's study do not appear representative of

traditional classroom management where a teacher presumably

takes a greater corrective role. Therefore, control treat-

ment procedures should be considered when mastery versus

non-mastery conditions are being compared to ensure that

control groups are not deliberately assigned inferior in

struction, deemed representative,of tradition'al classroom

instruction.

00155

Reasons for obtaining non-significant results 2in this

.mastery study by criterion level are subject to speculation.

The researcher suggests three plausible explanati ns for the

obtained results. First, students learned the mechanics of

a mastery procedure but failed to learn the unit content.

The overt responses made by students as they proceeded to de-

rive information from a data base in order to complete

sentence stems were in themselves insufficient to guarantee

mastery of content. material. Upon completion of.a lesson's

sentence stems, it was important that a student study the

composed narrative in its entirety to learn it. This impor-

tant reinforcing procedure was not monit6red by the mastery

procedures. If a student failed to internalize the learning

outcomes, he could not recall them liter in the final test.

At the end of each of the three parts in the unit text, a

15 item multiple choice test waS self-administered using the

same procedures employed with the individual lessons. Ob-.,

servational data from teachers and the investigator showed

that students who took these three review tests performed

poorly and showed considerable surprise at their low scores.

This information indicates that students were failing to

) learn the content as they completed the exercises.

The studies utilizing the FIRM method of instruction

support the above conclusion. First, Dale (1972) reported

no significant difference in learning between the FIRM and

narrative units of instruction, Population Growth in the

010156

143

United States and Mexico. Pelletti (1973), building upon

Dale's study, investigated the role of graphics in geography

according to five different modes of presentatibn. The re°

sults indicated that the increased time it took students to

complete the FIRM unit, graphics as primary communication

with focusing instruments, did not influence achievement.

O p the contrary, students achieved as well with less time

given simpler instructional materials, such as narrative

with graphics as reinforcement or narrative only.

A second possible explanation is related to a confound-

ing variablelanguage. Mastery learning is a strategy

aimed primarily at the low achiever. In this study, many of

the low achievers were also classified as non-English

speakers. Because tfle.materials were written at approximate-

ly the seventh grade reading level, predominantly Spanish

speaking students probably found the unit more complicated

than native English speakers, as observed by the investi-

gator and teachers. While teachers attempted to tutor fre

quently the Spanish speaking pupils and to supervise closely

their progress, the limited amount of time available in a

class period prevented the teacher from achieving optimal

tutoring conditions.0

A third reason for non-significant results is the pos-

sible lack of procedural implementation by-teachers and

students. The teacher role in this study was very impor-

tant because it called for active participation, that is,

constant interaction with students and close supervision

00157

144

of students. However, it was difficult for the teachers to

supervise each child's progiess as much as had been initially

expected. Students not meeting criterion and failing to re-

peat tho'corrective procedure or claiming to have met the

criterion, when in fact they had not, could have proceeded

\through the unit undetected by the classroom teacher for .a

period ofatime. in addition, the investigator had changed

the class-paced mastery pattern, to an individualized pro-

gram.. The class-paced pattern had originally called for

periodic class discusions, supplementary activities or ma-

terials, and review procedures to be implemented throughout

the treatment at the teacher's discretion. In the present

study the emphasis shifted from mastery of material to com-

pleting the unit within the time period of 15 days.

The last chapter will provide a summary and conclusions

of the study and recommendations for follow-up research.

00158

Oft

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR FOLLOW-UP RESEARCH

This investigation was an Outgrowth of interest in

Bloom'g construct,of mastery learning. Bloom has proposed

that under appropriate instructional conditions, virtually

all students can learn most of what they are taught. The

problem of mastery learning is one of finding a strategy that

matches instruction t6 the student so that he actually spends

the time needed to learn. A major premise of mastery learn-.

ing, therefore, is that diagnostic and prescriptive instruc-

tion can reduce, if not completely eliminate, learning

difficulties of children customarily attributed to aptitude.

The specific purpose of this study was to investigate

the relationship of differential criterion, levels and apti-

tude on student achievement, retention, and attitude. Apti-

tude was measured in terms of the vocabulary subtest of the

IaWa Test of Bagic Skills. Vocabulary knowledge was used to

establish three vocabulary groups--high, middle, and low.,

Achievement and retention were measured by the population

geography test developed by Dale to accompany the unit Popu-

lation Growth in the United States and Mexico. Attitude to-

ward the subject by different criterion levels was measured

145

00159

146

by the Attitude Toward Any Subject scale of Remmers (short

form).

Differential criterion levels, aptitude, and interaction

effects generated nine research hypotheses. These may be

summarized: there is a significant difference (p < .05) by

three criterion levels--90%, 80%, and 70%--and by three vo-

cabulary levelshigh, middlee.rand low--and in the interaction

effects of criterion and vocabulary on

1. achievement,2. retention, and3. attitude.

Procedures

Instruction utilized the text Population Growth in the

United States and Mexico (Dale & Rice, 1972) organized ac-/

cording to a method of presentation called the Forced

Inferential Response Mode (FIRM). It uses incomplete sen-

tence stems to force students to derive information from a

data base to construct a series of sequential responses. The

correctly completed stems compose a logical narrative which

explaiii information contained in the data base. In this

unit, the data base consisted of maps, graphs, tables, and

charts. Each data base provided the content for one lesson.

The mastery procedure consisted of.five main steps. f

First, a student studied a data base as a source of informa-

tion. Second, he proceeded to complete all of the stems on

the corresponding page of the data base. These answers were

written by the student. Third, when the stems were completed,

001601

l4417

a student obtained an answer booklet from the 'teacher to-

check his answers. If a student met the prescribed criterion

level, he recorded the score in his personal score log and

proceeded to the next lesson. However, if a student failed

to attain the prescribed criterion level, he was required to

review the original data base and repeat the lesson's exer-

cises on a clean sheet of paper. Fifth, he obtained feedback

on the correctness ofhis responses. A second score was also

recorded in the pupil's personal score log. A student then

proceeded to the next unit, whether or not the specified

criterion had been attained in the correction procedure.

Twenty-four seventh grade classes from the El Paso In-

dependent School District in El Paso, Texas served as the

experimental population. From this available pool the

classes were randomly assigned to three groups and then

treatments were randomly assigned to groups.

An analysis of variance was, conducted with each de-

pendent variable--achievement, retention, and attitude--to

determine the affect of differential criterion levels on stu-

dents of varying ability. Vocabulary knowledge was used as

a blocking variable. The study was a three-week treatment

with-la delayed posttest administered three weeks upon com-

pletion of the unit text.

Findings

On the geography achievement measure, a higher criter-

ion level did not facilitate learning more than a lower

00161

148

criterion level. There were highly significant differences

ain achievement among. the high, middle, and low vocabulary

level groups. The results were the same on the geography

retention measure as on the achievement measure. The attain-

ment of a higher criterion level did not facilitate retention

more than a lower level. There was a highly signiticant dif-

ference in retention among the high, middle, and low vocabu-

lary groups. On the attitude measure there was no signifi-

cant difference in mean attitude across treatment, the 90%,t

80%, or 70% criterion groups, nor across vocabulary level,

the high, middle, and low groups.

Conclusions

The findings for.the main treatment effects wereocon-

sistent on all four criterion measures -- achievement reten-

tion, attitude, and unit completion time. The study did not

produce evidence supporting the hypothesis that average%

achievement would be maximized under the maintenance of more

stringent criterion levels. The same lack of relationship

between the various levels and a delayed-posttest, likewise

indicate that more rigid criterion levels did not facilitate

a higher degree of achievement. Most important of all was

the statistical difference at the .001 level among vocabu-

lary groups on the achievement posttest and delayed posttest,

indicating that learning of the geography unit Population

Growth in the United States and Mexico was more a function

of aptitude, as measured by a word meaning test, than of

00162

149

differential criterion levels,. However, as noted in the chap-

ter on procedures, there is doubt if the pupils actually met

the stipulated criterion level. Where students of different

aptitude in a class are provided the same treatment, low apti-

tude students do not have an advantage that does not also af-

fect the top aptitude group. In this study limited feedback-

correction procedures did °not help the low ability students

reach a high level of achievement, irrespective of the

criterion level assigned.

A Attitude toward the subject was not affected bycriter-,

ion level. The three criterion groups were almost identical

in attitude and indicated a positive attitude toward the

treatment. The mean number of lessons completed was not af-

fected by the criterion level. As expected, the higher

abili* students completed significantly more lessons than

the low ability students, as did, also, the middle ability

group in comparison with the low ability students. TAse

findings are contrary to those of. Block, the only other in-

vestigator to examine the effect of various criterion levels

on learning. In the Block study the maintenance of high

criterion levels throughout a learning sequence did contrib-

ute to significantly higher levels of summative achievement.

However, Block did not examine the relationship between

achievement and aptitude."The finding of this study were

consistent with those of other studies employing social

studies materials and conducted at the intermediate level

(Jones, 1974; Wyckoff, 1974; Fagan, 1975). These studies

00163

,0

150

ave shown that mastery on formatiVe exercises did not con-

tribute to higher levels of achievement y lower aptitude ,

students. In view of these findings, the_ following observa-

tions are made.

Low ability students. need special assistance from teach-

ers and the school in overcoming many learning problems.

--Jones ___11914)suggested that mastery procedures coupled with

a teacher who i0 prepared to work closely-with the low

achievers would appear to offer the disadvantaged student

some hope of overcoming learning deficiencies. In this study,

the suggestion of Jones to incorporate close teacher super-

vision and tutoring of low aptitude students was employed in

addition to the use of student 'monitors to assist low achiev-

ers. Nevertheless, the resultS of this study and those of

Jones were'similar. In view of the fact that self-instruc-

tional materials did not work successfully with low aptitude

students, even though frequent teacher and student tutoring-

was provided, a combination of class-paced and individual

based mastery materials and procedures is suggested as one

means of assisting the slow learner to overcome his learning

difficulties. Corrective procedures, in addition to tutor-/

ing, include use of alternate learping materials or exercises,

small group study sessions, and class discussions.

The use of multiple feedback-correction procedures will

require more time for lower agility students than the averageat

and above average ac#ievers. But whether or not the advan-

tage of this practice outweighs the disSdvantage is important

00164

1

151

to note. First, about 20% of the total number of subjects in

this study did not finish the unit. Of -this-20%, 41% were

from the 90% criterion group, 31% were from the 80% criterion

group, and 28%were from the 70% criterion group. Yet, there

was no significant difference among the treatment groups on%

t

1

e amount of the unit completed nor the summative achieve-

m nt performance. The possible advantage of greater achieVe-

ment in mastery learning approaches must be weighed against

the disadvantage of less material covered. In the social

studies, where subj-ect matter is much less structured than

mathematics, the extra time that mastery procedures appear to

require may be unwarranted. The question arises as to wheth-

er it is quantity or quality that the school desires most for

its students. Today's.school administrators have to decide

whether the economics of achievement weighed against the ad-

ditional time that is needednto obtain quality instruction

is congruous with their educational goals.

The last section of the chapter will discuss' means for

correcting the major limitations of this study in a future

investigaEion.

j Recommendations for Follow-up

Research

Based upon the findings, observations, and conclusions

of the present study, the investigator submits the following

specific recommendations for further researOngelating to

the facilitative effects of mastery criterion levels.4

t

152

,This study should be replicated with the recommendations

-by the investigator that offset the major limitations of the

present study. The purpo e should remain the same, to study

the effect of different criterion levels on the achievement,

retention, attitude, and unit completion time of seventh grade

studeas using Population Growth in the United States and

Mexico.° Aptitude should remain as a concomitant variable,

measured by vocabulary, reading al?iaity, or IQ and socio-

economic status.

The first recommendation conc ns the duration of the

study. The three week duration of the present study was in-

sufficient time to complete the unit in its entirety, 44 les-s)

sons, and provide supplementary classroom and group activities

to reinforce i'irning. The study should be extended an addi-

tional two to three weeks to enable the unit to be taught

under a semi-class-based approach that combines both individ-

ual and group based techniques. Because those students who

did not complete the unit averaged about 22 completed les-

sons, the investigator suggests that an additional two to

thr ee week extension will be sufficient to enable all stu-

dents to complete the unit, in addition to enabling the

'teacher to conduct group based activities as a means of unit

reinforcement. This procedure was originally prescribed for

this study; however, when the classroom time available was

considered along with the lengt the unit in the pilot

phase of. the study, the approach was switched to an almost

-

00166

4.

l53-

completely individualized program to enable,most students to

complete the unit within a three week period.

In addition to recommending an extended period for the

study to provide a semi-class-based strategy, the investiga-

tor suggests that alternative corrective procedures be uti-

'lized. Besides the corrective alternative which calls for a

review of original content material and the use of teacher

and student tutoring, two other corrective teaching proce-

dures are suggested. The first is the utilization of small

groUp discussion sessions to review particular lessons or

unit sections. Second, the FIRM unit Population Growth in

the Unitpd States and Mexico has a straight narrative counter-

part with no graphics which, can be employed as an,additional

corrective. Students who do not attain criterion can, be di-

rected to the same lesson within the narrative text, contain-

ing,the identical sentence stems in the FIRM unit but in a

completed and uninterrupted fashion. A student will study

the narrative before repeating lesson exercises of the FIRM

unit or taking a researcher-constructe formative-test.

The third recommendation,is a ass-based procedure

which should enhance student internalization of content Ma-

'terial. Students will be required to explain to the class

any given database in a systematic manner. In explaining

a map, for example, thetideal will be for.the student to

relate systematjcally the components of a map to one another

--the title to the key, the key to the map itself, and the

map to the title of the lesson. First, the teacher will

00167

ps%

4

154

have to demonstrate this technique to the class, using each

type of data base in the unit text. A questioning component4

can be,addW in which the teacher and the other students

raise questions to be answered by the pupil explaining the (data base to the class, or other class members as well when

the student who is reporting on a data base does not reply

to a given question. There are a number of class-based

procedures that can be incorporated into the semi-class-.

paced mastery strategy; pupil led discussions is only one

recommended procedure that may help students to better under-0

stand the unit Population Growth in the United States and

Mexico.

The above recommendations to extend the duration of

the study, implement additional correctives, and provide,

class-based activities., and discussions have been made by the

investigator to correct the main weaknesses of this

study in other related .investigations undertaken in the fu-

ture. Students, especially lower aptitude students, may be

more successful in their learning because they will go be-

yond the mechanics of a mastery procedure to perhaps a

greater understanding of the material.

An additional recommendatioconcerns the need for fur-

ther mastery learning 'research in the social studies to as-

certain whether hierarchically sequenced subjects such is

mathematics lend, themselves more readily to mastery proce-

dures than do the social studies in which the sequencing of

material may be logical but not necessarily hierarchical.

00168

0

REFERENCESc-

Ames, L. B. A low intelligence quotient often not recog-nised ao the chief cauoe of many learning difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1, 1968,45-49.

Ames, L. B,, and Walker, R. N. Prediction of later read-ing ability from kindergarden R.rscharh and IQ scores.

oE1,42.P2y2110100.iJournalofE2, 55, 1964, 309-313.

.Atkinswn, R. C. Computev-based instructioh in initialreading. Proceedings of the 1967 Invitational Con-ference on Testing, Problems. Princeton: Education-al Testing Service, 196 .

Ausubel, D. P. lalscltiveviewEducatior.New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968.

Bagley, W. C. An essentialist's 'platform for the advance-tment of American education. .Educational Administra-tion and'Supervision, 24 (April 1938),.241-56.

Harth, J. L., and Shermis, S. S. Defining the social stud-ies: An exploration of three traditions. SocialEducation, 34 (November 1970), 743-751.

Bercheck, I., and Tauss, V. Opening classroom: Guidingthe transition from traditional to open classroom.Elementary School Journal, 74 (November 1973), 78-83.

Bereiter, C.,'and Engelmann,'S. Teaching disadvantagedchildren in the pre-school. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966.

Biehler, Robert F. Psychology applied to teaching. ik)s-

ton: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1971.

Best, T. On the other side of sesame street. AmericanEducation, 10 (May 194), 6-10.'

Bigge, M. L. Learning theories for teachers. New York:

Harper, 1971.

156

00170

a

O 157

Block, J. H. The effects of various levels of perfor-mance on selected cognitive, affective, and timevariables. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni-versity of Chicago, 1970.

lock, J. H., ed. Haste learnin : Theo and react'New York: Hoit,Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1971.

Block, J. H. Student learning and the setting of mastery,performance standards. Educational Horizons, 50(1972), 183-191.

Block, J. H. Mastery learning in the classroom: An over-view of recent research. Paper presented at theAmerican Educational Research Association, New Or-leans, 1973.

.01

Block, J. H., ed. Schools, society, and mastery learning.Atlanta: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1974.

Bloom, B. S.istics.

Bloom, B. S.9 vation.

Stability and change in human character-New York: John-Wiley and Sons, 1964.

Compensatory education for cultural aepri-New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965.

Bloom, B. S. IJarning for mastery, Evaluation Comment, 1,No. 2' (1968),

Bloom, B. S. An. introduction to mastery learning theory.Schools, Society, and Mastery Learning, ed. by J. H.Block. Atlanta: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.,1974.

.Bloom, . S., Basting, T. J., and Madaus, G. F. Handbookon formative and summative evaluation of studentlearning. New York: McGraw-Hil Book Company, 1971.

I. The Measurement of attitude toward mathe-Psychological Monographs, 50 (1938),

. )

A. Criteria of learning in educational re-Journal of Educational Psychology, 39 (1948),

Bolton, \E. Bmatics.155-182

Brownell, W.search.170-182

Campbell, Donald T. A review of generalized attitudescales. The Fourth Mental Measurements Yearbook,ed. by 0. K. Buros. Highland Park, New Jersey:Gryphon Press, 1953, 46.

00191

158

Campbell, Donald T. The Purdue master attitude scales.The Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook, ed. by 0. K.Buros, 1965, 168.

Carroll, J. B. A model of school learning. Teacher'sCollege Record, 64 (1963), 723-33.

Carroll, J. B. Problems of measurement related to theconcept of learning for mastery. Educational Hori-zons, 48 (1970), 71-80.

Clark, Kenneth E. APreview of generalized attitude scales.The Fourth Mental Measurements Yearbook, ed. by O. K.Buros. Highland Park, New Jersey. Gryphon Press,1953,-46.

Collins, K. M. A strategy for mastery learning in modernmathematics. Unpublished study, Purdue University,Division of Mathematical Sciences, 1970.

Colon, B. A. A. comparison of the performancg of seventh-grade students with and without prior knowledge ofthe objectives of an individualized science program.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State Uni-versity, 1970.

Cook, J. M. Learning and retention by informing studentsof behavioral objectives and their place in the hier-archical learning sequence. USOE Final Report, 1969.

Cubberley, E. P. Public education in the United States.Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1934.

Dale, J. R. An analysis of the effects on achievement usr,ing the forced inferential response mode in an inter-mediate grade population geography unit. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, 1972.

Dale, J. R.,and Rice, M. J. Population growth in theUnited States and Mexico. Athens, Georgia: Geogra-phy Curriculum Project, University of Georgia, 1972.

Dalis, G. T.. Effect of precise objectives upon studentachievement in health education. The Journal of Ex-perimental Education, 39 (1970).

Ducliastel, P. C.,and Merrill, P. F. The effects of-be-havioral objectives on learning: A review of empir-ical studies. Review of Educational Research, 43(Winter, 1973), 53-69.

00172

159

Duffy, 0. B., Clair, T. N., Egeland, B., and Dinello, M.Relationship of intelligence, visual motor skills,and psycho-linguistic abilities with'achievement inthe 3rd, 4th, and 5th grades: A follow-up study.Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 1972, 358362.

Dumbleton, D. D. The effects of guided inquiry and exposi-tory materials on cognitiveelearning, retention, andtransfer in a social studies unit for secondary levelstudents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer-sity of Georgia, 1973.

Dunn, L. M., and Horton, K. B. Peabody language develop-ment kits: Manual for Level 2. Circle Pines, Minn.:American Guidance Services, Inc, 1966.

Ebel, R. Essentials of educational measurement. EnglewoodCliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972.

Educational Policies Commission. The central purpose ofAmerican education. Washington, D.C., 1961.

Edwards, A. L. Experimental design in psychological re-search. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.,1968.

El Paso.profile. El Paso, Texas: El Paso Industrial Devel-opment Corporation and El Paso Chamber of Commerce,1974. ,

Fagan, J. Transportation and the environment. Athens, Ga.:Geography Curriculum Project, University of Georgia,1972.

Fagan, J. The effect of mastery and non-mastery on theachievement and retention of seventh grade studentsstudying a geography unit. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, University of Georgia, in process, 1975.

Feather, N. T. Effects of prior success and failure on ex-pectations of, success and subsequent performance.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 1966,287-2n.7--

Ferguson, L. W. ' ersonality measurement. New York:McGraw-Hill, 1952.

Findley, W. G. A comprehensive plan for reorganizing edu-cation in these United States now. Educational Hori-zons, 50, 1972, 167-175.

00113

160

Fishburne, R. P. A comparison of programmed and a non-programmed text on evolution for the fifth grade.Unpublished Master's thesis, Georgia Southern Col-lege, 1971.

Fitzpatrick, E. A.,ed. St. Ignatius and the ratio stud-iorum. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963.

Flesch, R. How to test readability. New York: Harper,1949.

Ford, E.,and Walker, V. Public secondary schools of theUnited States. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Office of Edu-cation, 1961.

Fry, E. Judging readability of books. Teacher Education,(1964), 34-49.

Gaines, W. G. An application of John B. Carroll's modelof school learning to the teaching of anthropology.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University ofGeorgia, 1971. /

Glaser, R. T ward a behavioral science base for.instruc-%a.

instruc-tional des'gn. Teaching Machines and ProgrammedLearning, ed. by R. Glaser. Washington, D. C.: Na-tional Educational Association, 1965.

Glaser, R. Adapting the elementary school curriculum toindividual performance. Proceedings of the 1967 In-vitational Conference in Testing Problems. Princeton:Educational Testing Service, 1968.

Gwynn, J., and Chase, J. B. Curriculum principles and so-cial trends. New York: MacMillan, 1969.

Haynes, C. A. Humanizing instruction in the open.class-room. Educational Horizons, 52 (1973)4 32-6.

Healey,.J. R., and Stephenson, L. K. Unit mastery learningin an introductory geography course. The Journal ofGeography, 74 (January 1975), 7-11.

Hunt, J. Intelligence and experience. New, York: RonaldPress, 1961.

Jacobs, P., Maier, M., and Stolurow, L. A guide to evalu-ating self-instructional programs. -New York: Holt,Rinehart and Winston, 1966.

Jarvis, 0. T., and Rice, M. J. An introduction to teachingin the elementary school. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C.Brown, 1972.

00174

O

161

Johns, Jerry. Children's concepts of reading and theirreading achievement. Journal ok Reading Behavior, 4(1972), 56-57.

'Jones, F. G. The effects of mastery and aptitude on learn-ing, retention, an time. Unpublished doctoral dis-sertation,Univers of Georgia, 1974.

Jones, F. G. Functions of Cities. Athens, GA.: Geo-graphy Curriculum Project, University of Georgia,1974.

Jones. L. B. New patterns of instruction in English com-position. Report to the Board of Education. Denver,Colorado, 1962.

Kapenzi, G. Z. Job training for the disadvantaged. NegroEducational Review, 23 (1972), 29-34.

Keller, P. S. Goodbye, teacher. . . . Journal of AppliedBehavioral Analysis, 1 (1968), 79-89..

Kersh, B. Y. Programming classroom instruction. TeachingMachines and Pro rammed Learning, ed. by R. Glaser.Washington, D. C.: National Education Association,1965.

Kersh, M. E. A strategy for mastery learning in fifth-grade arithmetic. .Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Chicago, 1970.

Kilpatrick, W. H. Foundations of method. New York: Mac-millan, 1926.

Kim, H. Learning rates, aptitudes, and achievements. Un-published doctoral dissertation, University of Chi-cago, 1968.

Kim, H. The mastery learning project in the middleschools. Seoul: Korean Institute for Research inthe Behavioral Sciences, 1970.

Kim, H. Mastery learning in the Korean middle schools.UNESCO Regional Office for Education in Asia, 6,No. 1 (1971), Sec. I, 55-66.

Kruger, C. G. Social sciences and the humanistic curri-culum. Social Studies, 65 (1974), 257-8.

Lawler, R. M., Dick, W., and Riser, NE. Mastery learningand remedial prescriptions in computer-managed in-struction. Journal of Experimental Education, 43(1974). -,e-

00175

162

Lee, Yung Dug, et al. Interaction improvement studies on themaster learnin ro'ect--final resort on master learn-ing program, April-November, 1971. Educational. ResearchCenter, Seoul National University, November, 1971.

A.

Lindquist, E. F., and Hieronymus, A. N. Iowa Tests of basicskills: Form 6, level 13. Boston: Houghton Mifflin,1971.

Lindquist, E. F., and Hieronymus, A. N. Manual for adminis-trators, supervisors, and counselors. Boston: HoughtonMifflin, 1974.

Lysaught, J. P., and Williams, C. M. .A guide to programedinstruction. New York: Wiley, 1963.

Markle, Susan M. Good frames and bad: A grammar of framewriting. New York: Wiley, 1964.

Maslow, A. H. Toward a psychology of being. Princeton:Van Nostrand4 1968.

Merrill, M. D., Barton, K., ang Wood,' L. E. Specific reviewin learning a hierarchical imaginary science. Journalof Educational Psychology, 61 (1970), 102-9.

Merrill, P. F., and Towle, N. J. The effects of.the avail-ability of objectives on performance in a computer-managed graduate course. Tech Memo No. 47. Talla-hassee: CAI Center, Florida State University, 1972.

Morrison, H. C. The practice of teaching in the secondaryschools. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1926.

Myers, J. L. Fundamentals of experimental design. Boston:Allyn and Bacon& 1966.

Myers, R. A study o mastery and non-mastery in an intro-ductory coll geography course. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, University-of Georgia, in process, 1975.

Oswald, J. M., and Fletcher, J. F. Some measured effect ofspecificity and cognitive level of explicit,instruc-tional objectives upon test performance among eleventhgrade social science Students. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, Minneapolis, 1970.

Pelletti, J. C. The effects of graphs roles on learninggeography materials in the middle grades. ,Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, 1973.

00176

163

Pipe, P. Practical programing. New York: Holt, Rinehartand Winston, 1966.

Pressy, S. L. A simple apparatus which gives tests andscoresandteaches. School and Society, 23, 1926,373-76.

Reed, J. E. An experiment involving use of "English 2600,"an autbmate instructional text. Journal of EducationalResearch, 55, 962, 476-84.

Remmers, H. H. A scale to, measure-attitude toward any schoolsubject. Lafayette, Ind.: Purdue Research Foundation,1960.

Rice, M. J. Variables in mastery learning in elementary so-cial studies. Research proposal submitted to theNational Institute of Education, 1973.

7

Romberg, A., Shepler, J., and King, I. Mastery learning andretention. Tephnical Report No. 151, Wiscondin Researchand Development Center for Cognitive Learning, The Uni-versity of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 1970.

Rugg, H., and Shumakor, A. The child centered schbol. New.York: World Bo'k Co., 1928.

Rushton, E. The Roanoke story. Chicago: EncyclopaediaBritannica Press, 1963.

Schramm, W. The research on programed instruction: An anno-tated bibliography. Washington: .S. Dept. of Health,Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, 1964.

Shaw, M. E., and Wright, J. M. Scales for the measurementof attitudes. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

Sheppard, W. C., and MacDermot, H. J. Design and evalua-tion of a programed course in introductory psychol-ogy, Journal of Applied Analysis, 3, 1970, 5-11.

Sherman, J. G. Application of reinforcement principlesto a college course. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Educational Research Asso-ciation, New York, 1967.

Silance, E. B., and Remmers, H. H. An experimental general-ized master scale: A scale to measure attitude towardany school subject. Purdue University Studies inHigher Education, XVI, 1934, 84-88.

001.77

Skinner, B. F. The science of learning and the ofteaching. Harvard Educational Review, 24, 1954,86-97.

164

Smith, B. O., Stanley, W. O., and Shores, J. H. Fundamen-tals of curriculum development. New York: Harcourt

.Brace Jovanovich, 1957.

Smith, M. I. Teaching to specific o tives--second pro-cess report (evaluation of test da a) for he devel-opment of a county-wide articulati n in fpreignlanguage instruction through common measurement pro-cedures. Stanislaus County (Calif.) School's Office,1968. c

;

Stoddard, Ann. Impact of integrated history material onattitudes toward self and others of black high schoolstudents, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer-sity of Georgia, 1975.

Stolurow, L. M. Implications of current research andfuture trends :.,. Journal of Educational Research, 55,1962, 519 -527.

Strunk, 0. Attitude toward psychology as a factor in thejudgment of the readability of a psychplogy textbook.Proceedings from the West Virginia Academy of Science,29, 1957, 175-179.

Stuempfig, D. W., and Maehr, M. L. The effects of concep-tual structure and personal quality of feedback onmotivation. Child Development, 41, 1970.

Tatsuoka, M. M: Significance tests univariate and multi-,variate. Champaign, Illinois: Institute for Per-sonality and Ability Testing, 1971,

Thomas, G. The use of programmed instruction for teachinganthropolpgy in the fifth grade. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, University of Georgia, 1967.

Thorndike, E. L. The principles of teaching, based onpsychology. New York: A. G. Seiler, 1906.

Thorndike, E. L. Meital discipline'in high school studies.Journal Of Educational Psychology,' 15, 1925.

Thorndike, E. L. The fundamentals of learning. New York:Teachers Co11e4e, Columbia University, 1932.

001:/8

A

165

Traxler, A. E. The relationship between vocabulary andgeneral achievement in the elementary school. Ele-mentary School Journal, 45 (1945).

Walbesser,H. H.,and Carter, H. Some methodological con-siderations of curriculum education research. Edu-cational Leadership, 26 (1968), 53-64.

Washburne, C. W. Educational measurement as a key toindividuaAzing instruction add promotions. Journal

, of Educational Research, 5 (1922), 195-206.

Washburne, C.,W. A living philosophy of education. NewYork: John Day, 1940.

Washburne, C. W., Voge1,14., and Gray, W. S. Results ofpractical experiments in fitting schogks toindivi-duals. Supplementary educational monograph, Journalof Educational' Research, Bloomington, Ill.: 'PublicSchool Publishing, 1926.

Wilhelms, F. T., ed. Evaluation as feedback and guide.° 1967 Yearbook, Association for Supervision and Cur-

riculum Development (Washington, D. C.: The Asso-ciation, 1967).

Wright, W. Achievement as a function of time: An analy-sis of selected Stanford achievement test batteryresults. Unpublished manuscript, University ofChicago, Dept. of Education, 1967.

Wyckoff, D. B. A study of mastery learning and its effects on achievement of sixth grade social studiesstudents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, .Geor-gia State University, 1974..

00179

4-3

4

APPENDICES

166

00180A

.0

a

ir

APPENDIX A

Table of Contents and Thrbe Sample

Lessons from Population Growth

in the United States and Mexico

J.

167

00181`ti

a

160

Appendix A gives one sample'lesson from each o/the

three. parts in the unit Population Growth in the Uni ed

States and Mexico, as shown in the table of contents. The

first sample lesson rom Part Iis "Internal 'Migration."

The second sample lesson from Part II is "Mexican Ame/icans

in the United States." The third sample lesson from Part

III is "Comparison of Birth Rates and Death Rates in the

United- States and Mexico." The unit consists of a total of

41 lessons and a 15-item review test for each of the three

parts. Students in the study were required to fill in the

empty blanks of the sentence stems with a response derived

from the study of a lesson's data base. The reference to/

the unit text follows:

Dale, J. R., 1rd Rice, M. J. Populationgrowth in the United States and Mexico.Athens, Georgia: Geography CurriculumProject, University of Georgia, 1972.

Cr!

01.

O

169

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Instructions

Part 1: CHANGES IN THE MEXICAN POPULATION: 1500-1971

oIntroduction1. The Distribution of the Indian Population in North

America in 14922. Food Production and Major Mexican Indian Groups in 15193. Population Changes in Mexico During the Colonial Period4. A Century. of Warfare and Slow Growth: 1820-1920S. Land Lost by Mexico Between 18364850

Page

iii

4

6

__!g.

10.

126., Population Grow in Mexico Since 1930 147. The Declinb of Me ico's Birth and'Death Rate Since 1930 168. Causes for the Dine of the Mexican Birth id Death Rates 189. International Migrations to And from Mexico 20

10. Internal Migrations 2211. (Major Urbah Areas in Mexico: 1970 2412. Urbanization in Mexico: 1930-1970 , 2613. Recent OcdupatiOnal Changes in Mexico 28Review Questions for Part 1 29

Part 2: CHANGES Ih THE' -UNITED STATES POPULATION: 1500-1971

1. The Distribution and Decline of the United. States IndianPopulation 32

2. European Countries Establish Colonies in the NewriVorld 34

3. English Settlements Move Inland: 1625-1780 36.4. United States Population Growth-Apring the Colonial Period 38S. The Economy and People of the 4Nosh Colonies 406. The United States Census 42

7. The Territorial Growth of the United States: 1790 -1860 44

8. Population Changes in the United States: 17911-1860 469. Growth of the. United States Population: 1790-1860 48

10. Conditions Affecting the United States Immigration Rate:1790i-1860 50

11. Immigration to the United States! 1790-1860 52

12. The Decline of the United States Birth and Death Rates:1850-1900 54

13w Immigration co the United States: 1360-1900' 56

14. Population Growth in the United States: 1900-1971 58

15, The Changing Patterns of Immigration to the United States 60.

0Q183 6

170

16. The Changing Source of Immigrants to the United States:1860-1865-

6217. Mexican Americans in,the United States 6418. Internal Migration in the United States: 1900-1970 6619. The Migration from Cities to Suburbs 6820. Long Distance Internal Migration in the United States 7021. The Growth of the United States Population by States:

1960-1970 ' 7222. Population Density of the United States .74Review Questions for Part 2 f 75

Part 3: A COMPARISON OF THE POPULATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO TODAY

1. A Comparison of Population Growth in the United Slates andMexico: 1900-1971 %

782. Comparison of Birth Rates and Death Rates in the United States,and Mexico

803. Important Traits of the United States and Mexican Populations 824. Racial Groups in the United States and Mexico 845. A Model of Population Change

866. 'Estimate of the Populations of the. United States and Mexico

in the Year 200088

Review Questions for Part 389

Glossary

ii

00184

92

p

171

Figure 12 = Internal Migration ,,_,

'permanent movement of people inside the borders of a coUntryr-, , -t

Capital cityOther major citiesInternational boundary

exicorbt. '710777

n FIGURE 13 __,...,

CBABACTERISTICS OF RURAL AND URBAN AREASfsc"

Urban Areas (Cities) Rural Areas (Farm Areas)

1. Many people living close together. 1. Most homes are not close together.(High population density) (Low population density)

2. Many omes are close together. 2. Most hOUsJs haveonbo one familyliving in them.

3. Many buildings house more than _

one family. 3. Most people make their living byfarming, fishing, or mining.

4. Most people make their living byworking in stores, factories,and offices.

O

00185

OPart 1

10. INTERNAL MIGRATION

1. A second major type of migration involves the permanentmovement of people within the borders of a country. Thistype of migration is called ...

2. In this type of migration the of the country are notcrossed.;

In Mexico today, the most important type of internal migrationinvolves the movement of people from farm areas into cities.Figure 13 shows that:

3. Cities are also called ... areas-.

4., In urban areas, the density of population is ...

4. Farm areas ars often callpd ... areas.

G. Places where most of the population makes its living byfishing, farming, or mining are called areas.

7. People who live in homes that are very close together usuallylive in ... areas.

O. The population density of .(1). areas is lower than thepopulation density of .(2). areas. (1)

(2)

172

9. Today-many Mexicans are migrating from Al). areas tolive in .(2). areas.

. (1)

(2)/ 1

,. c,

10. One oif the major reasons for the rural to urban migration

in Mexico is the search for higher paying jobs. The peoplewho move to the city will make their living by working in ...(1)

11. People in rural northern Mexico are pulled northward towardcities along the border of the ...

12. People in rural southern Mexico are pulled toward the capitalof Mexico, which is ...

22

00 186

(2),

(3)

173

\I - ... Figure 40:Mexican American Population

Wash. ',1 7: - , . . In the Western U.S. i ,

, ,1 .

I.--,,....... ..... ., I .

.i i.,Montana N Dakota ,

l :- - - - - ,-Oregon / 1,,-,1- - .... , %Mina. '...1 Idaho ' i . , .- - , i 46.

-_ * ; S. Dakota : ... Wise.Mich.sti-----1 ' Wyoming ..1

i .- i# -7* ; ....... "...v....4-.,

i Nevada , -_ 1----.._ s_ Nebraska 1.. Iowa6icaI_ i I

r I

Alandv ,

I 1 I 1 1

1sSon Francisco. i Utah I I- - - -- - ---`

v t Ill. II Ind. ;. / I% i

rÌ Colorado i -i ,,,

I Kansas Mo. ts ..../-Calif. \ . 1"----_ I 1

ro ' ' .1 Kys -' ------- - .:_ .f ...:,_

Los

Pacific

Ocean-

Arizona

About 5 million Mexican Americanslive in the United States

ESM Where most Mexican Americans live

0 Cities with large Mexican American populations

-- International boundary---- State boyndary

'I Okla. I

- `, Tenn.I --1--Ark. t-..,so......41...

I,Miss.

Texai La: laaa,

Houston;

Ala.

redo

Tnsville 0 200 400miles

Gulf of Mexico

0 0 1 8 7

O

.

Part 2

17. MEXICAN AMERICANS IN THE UNITED STATES

1. Betw n 1954 and 1964 the nation that sent the largestnumb r of immigrants to the United States was ...(If you have forgotten, see Figure 39.)

2.

3.

4.

174

MoXicans that immigrate to the U.S., or the children ofMexicans that have come at an earlier time, are called ....

The total raimber of Mexican Americans in the U.S. isestimated to be...

Most Mexican_ Americans live in the states of ... (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

S. Since most of these Mexican Americans live in these fivestates, they make up a very important part of the ...of these states.

6. Four-of these states are located along the U.S. borderwith ...

7. Outside of this five-state area; the heaviest MexicanAmerican population is found in some cities. Four suchcities are (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

8, The number of Mexicans immigrating to the U.S. is larger,than the number from any other country. We can thereforeexpect the Mexican.American'poputation in the U.S. tocontinue to ...

/7

64

00188

Figure 49:Birth Rate and Death Ratefor U.S. and Mexico 1920-1971

50

Rate

Mexican

40

\ 42Birthsper 100C

30- AA .,

.. .. ,. S 61/-`%(.4.017 ;' .i.16A ii)

20- -*,...., ..'.',l'oitp s..e...... .-,.....

.... 01 , Jo-----e Births

per 1000

10- -"*Deathsper 1000

1920 1930 1940 1950: 1960 1970

World Birth Rate-I971-34 per 1000 *-

World Death Rate-1971-14 per 1000

00189

ti

Part 3

2. COMPARISON OF BIRTH RATES AND DEAlli RATES IN THE

UNITED STATES AND MEXICO

176

1. The last set showed that the total population of the

.(1). was larger than that of ,(2). (1)

(2)

2. It also showed that the Mexican population was growing

at a ... rate than the United States population. This

set will try to discover the reasons for the rapid

growth of the Mexiiian population.

,

3. The Mexican birth rate per thousand in 1971 was ...

4. The Mexican death rate for that same year was ... per

thousand.

S. The Mexican birth rate per thousand was greater than the

depth rate per 1000 in 1971 by ... per thousand.

6. The U. S. birth rate per thousand in 1971 was ...

7. In that same year the U. S. death rate per thousand.

was ...

8. Thus in 1971 the U. S. birth rate was greater than the

U. S. death rate by only ... per thousand.

9. From these numbers we can see that the major reason for

the fast growth in Mexico in 1971 was that many more

Mexicans were born in 1971 than ... in 1971.

10: If we tookan average group of 1000 people from the

Mexican population in 1971, we would find that the

number of births would be gredter than the number of

(Maths by ...

11. If we took a similar group ofs1000 people from the U. S.

population in 1971, we would find the number of births

would be greater than the number of 'deaths by

42. Thus.we can see that Mexico is a country with a high

.(1) rate and a low .(2). rate. (1)

(2)

I

13. The U. S.; ,ho ever, is a country with both a low

.(1). rate a a low .(2). rate. (1)

' (2)

80

00190

P'

PUPIL'S PERSONAL SCORE LOG(90% Criterion Level)

NAME

SECTION

TEACHER PERIOD

NO. YOU MUST'GET RIGHT FIRST E

178

1.1V 151.2 161.3 181.4 191.5 151.6 131.7 131.8 7

1.9 101.10 141.11 101.12 111.13 7

REVAgW I 142.1 162.2 92.3 '112.4 152.5 '14

2.6 202.7 102.8 7

2.9 102.10 9

2.11 10 , ,2.12 152.13 18

' 2.14 202.15 10 ,

2.16 142.17 142.18 102.19 9

2.20 112.21 17 ,

4 2.22 13REVIEW II 14

3.1. ,4 8

3.2 144,

3.3 14 ,

3.4 143.5 153.6 6

REVIEW III 14

00102

4.

NAME,.

o.

PUPIL'S PERWRNAL SCORE LOG(80% Criterion LeVel)

SECTION

TEACHERt,

PERIOD

179

NO. YOU MUSTGET RIGHT FIRST EXERCISE SECOND EXERCISE

.

1.1t

14.

1.2 141.3 161.4 ' 17 -"1.5 141.6 11 .

1.7 11-1.8 6 ,..

1.9. A 9

1.110,G 131.11 . 9

1.12 ' .10

1.13 6 .

REVIEW I 122.1' 14-2.2 8

2.3 102.4 142.5 132.62.7 x9 .

24 6

2.92.10 8

2.11 9 1

2.12 14

2.13 16,Ja-

2.14 182.15 9

2.16 122.17 122.18 . 9 4

2.19 8

2.20 102.21 152.22 11

REVIEW II,

3.1 ''. 7

3.2 13 t.

3.3 123.4 123.5 143.6 6

REVIEW III 12

00193

C 10

A°

.17

NAME

PUPIL'S PERSONAL SCORE LOdw'(7GFCriterion Level)

SECTION

TEACHER

NO. YOU MUSTGET RIGHT -FIRST EXERCISE

PERIOD

180

SECOND EXERCISE

1.1 121.2 13

. 1.3 14 z

1.4 15,

1.5 121.6 101.7 101.8 6 '

1.9 8',

, /

1.10 11 0.

1.11 8 v

1.12 8 .

1.13 6

REVIEW I 112.1 132.2 7 4,

2.3 .

.

: 2.4 12 ..

2.56

' 11 ' . ..

2.6 152.7 8

2.8 0

2.9 8,

.2%.102.11 8 .

2.12 122.13 142.14 152.15 8

2.16 Li2.17 112.18 8

.

2.19 7

2.20 8cl

2.21 13. 2.22 10 .

e

REVIEW II 113.1 6 .

3.2 11 .

3.3 11 .

3.4 11

? 3.5 123.6 5. 0

REVIEW III .11 .

00194

tl

4.

APPENDIX C

Treatment Directions to the

Student and Teacher

1

181 ,

1

I 00195

O

O

\

TO THE STUDENT AND THE TEACHER

The unit Po

L182

ulation Growth in Mexico and the United.States is_prepared -in the; form of a teacher tutor text.

Me population information you are to learn in this,book id given in the form of a data base. The datasbaseis presented in the foim of a map,'a graph, a table, or-A chart. Examples of these are:'

4

On the page opposite the data base is a series ofcompletion statements. The completion statementsdirectyou to study the data base%in a particular way. To com-plete the statement, you must study the map, graph chart,or table.

A Map .page 3; Figure 1

A Graph page 7, Figure 3

A ChartA Table

pagepage

7,31,

FigureFigure

4

18

Before you begin the unit, your teacher will intro -r'duce(the different types of data base. -Pay careful at-tention to this introduction so you can get a dood ideaof how to study a data base. Study especially the title,the key, graph headings, column headings, and other in-

.

formation in the data base.a 4

.

After your teacher has shown you how to study a database, then each-pupil will begin the unit and proceed athis own pace. Study the data base of a lesson, and thenproceed to fill in the blanks on the completion page. Donot try to do it from memory. Look at the data base tofind, the answer. Then read to yourself the'statement(with the completed'answer. this step of reading, yourcompleted statement is important to help you learn theinforination.

After you have completed an exercise or lesson, takethe answer booklet and line it up with the completion ex-ercise. If you get the answers correct put a check mark() on the answer item. IT yOu do not get the correctresponse, put an (x) mark. Them draw a line through theincorreceiresponse. Add up the number of correct respon-ses G And put the ,umber in your. log.

If you gotthe prescribed number of reslionses right,or more, you may proceed to the next exercise. If youdid not get the passing number right, you are to re-studythe data base. If you still do not understand, ask yourteacher or ,a monitor to help you.

0/ 00196

o1Q3

After the review, you do the exercise a second time._ Take a b14nk sheet, write your name on it and perio4, and

' cover up your anwers. Then do the exercise a second,time. Check yodr exercise against your ariswer book,gheckingsW) the correct responses. Enter the number ofcorrect responses on your answer sheet and in your 16g.Then hand in your answer sheet to the teacher.

6

00197

8

V

_ APPENDIX D.

Questions for Developing Map and GraphReaLa

ig Skills

QL

*

184

00198 9

tar

O

185

A TEACHER'O.GUIDE TO POPULATION GROWTH IN THE UNITED qSTATES.; AND MEXICOh: QUESTIONS FOR DEVELOPING

'MAP AND GRAPH READING SKILLS

FIGURE

1. What does Figure I represent? A map? A chart?graph? (A map)

' O

2. What is the title of the mat? (Indian PopulationDensity of North America- 1492)i=-

What does the word density, in the title, mean?(Population density reYers to how crowded an areais)

3.

4..

A

The title providestion.Who?What?Where?When?

four different.kinds6

(Indians)(pOpulation density)(North America)(1492)

of informa-

5. What countries are shown on the map? (Canada, Unit -ted Sates, Mexico)

ti6. Look at the key of the map. How is an internation-

al-boundary syMbolized?. (One line, twofdots)

Where dozyou see a in nternational boundary on themap? (Between CagAda and the United States; the1.1.- S. and Mexico, and Alaska and canada)

What does a boundry line°on a map signify? (Whereone country ends and another begins)

7. What else does the key tell about the map? (Thenumber of Indians per 16b square miles)

8. What does 19w dentity mean.? (Few or no Indians or0-10 Indians)

9. What does medium density Mean? (Some scatteredgroups or 11-16 Indians)

10. What d61-150

es high density mean? (Some large,groups orIndians)

What do highestdensAy mean? (Many large groupsor more than 150 Indians)

O

00199

186

'12. Locate the north arrow on yolg6 map (On the east/' coast of the U. S.). What does the arrow on a map

always tell? (North direction)

13. How much distance does the scale on the map repre-sent? (400 miles)

What does the scale. mean? (The length of the Scaleon the map represents 400 miles on actual land sur-

, face)

14. Why is it important to study the key of a map? (So (,

that one can understand-the information given onthe map)

FIGURE. 2:

1. What does Figure 2 represent? -(AN map)

2. What is the title of the map? (Major:Indian Groupsand Food Production in Mexico - 1519)

Whom does this map tell about? (Major Indian groups)What is the map. about? (food productionWhat country is represented? (MexicoWhen was this-information true? (15L9-)

3. What ilifo tion does the keypi'oVide? (Interne-.

national bo dary,capital city, and how the In-dians produc most of theirfodd)

4. How is an ieternational boundary represented on the* map? (One line, two dots)

Do you see a boundary line on the map? (Yes, be-tween Mexico and the U. S.)

, What does a large dot on the'map signify? (Thecapital. city of the Aztecs)

How did Indians pT.oduce most of their food? (tsh-ing, farmingl hunting, and gathering)

''How much distance does an Inch and a half on themap represent? (400 miles')

Find the north arrow (in the Gulf of Mexico). Whatdoes the arrow signify? (North direction)

9. Whatare the names of the major Indian groups shownon the map? (Chichimec, Tarascan, Tarahumar, Aztec,and Mayan)

00200

ti

4

187

FIGURE 3:

1. What does Figure 3 represent? (A graph)

2. ,What is this graph entitled? (Estimate of MexicanPopulation During the Colonial Period 1519-1810)

, 3. WHat was the colonial period of Mexico? (When Mex-ico was tiled by Spain)

4. flow 1 g.did.Mexico's colonial period last? (From,1519 to 1810 or 291 years)

5. What doeS the verticle axis, the one going up arkdown, measure? (Population in millions)

6. What does the horiZontal axis, the one going fromleft to right, measure? (Years),

7. What-three groups does the key represent? (Indians,Mestizos, and Whites)'Which is the largest group? (Indians)Which isthe second lrgest group? (Mestizos)

` Which is the smallest group? (Whites)

8. ,How do-you think a'person becomes a Mestizo?(Born to parents of mixed races)

9. What does the numb.v 10 on the verticle axis re-present? 110 million people)

FIGURE 4:

1. What does Figure 4 represent? (rA chart)

2. What the title of this chart? (The Major Causesfor the Decline of the Indian Population:0 '1519 to1650)

3. How many years are there between 1519 and 1650?(131 years)

5

4. What does the word decline mean from using the con-text and looking at the map? (To decrease in num-ber, to become fewer in number)

5. How many columns, does the chart have? (Three)0

.66. What is the heading of the first column? (Wars)

What is the heading of the second column? (Diseaseb)What is the heading of the third column? (Forcedlabor)

00201

44:

I

A

67. What does the asterisk after the word "Diseases"

tell you? (Look fora footnote)

What does the footnote 'Say? (Diseases killed moreIndiaps than any other cause) o

8. .Call upon students to read the information in thecolumns. What were the major types of diseases that

' caused the eath of so many-Indians? (Small pox, ,

measles, mala and ye11ow fever)

FIGURE 18:

1.. What does Figure 18 represent? (A table)

188

2. What is the title of this table?the U. S. Indian Population)

'3. What is anothei word. for the wordtitle? (Decrease)

(The Decline df

"decline" in the

4. Read the title again. Whom dots this title tellabout? (Indians) Where dia these Indians live?

e (The U. S.)t

5. How many columns are there in this table? (Seven)What is the heading of the first,

6.

column? (Name of the Region)What is the headingcond column?

The third coluhn?

The fourth column?

The 'fifth column\7-The sixth column?The seventh column?

How many regions ar(Ten regions)

of the, se-(Date of First Euro-pean Contact)

(Number of Indians at the Timeof Contact)(Number of Indians in the Region'in 1907)(Major Cause of Decline)('Major Disease)

(Largest Tiibe'in the Region)

e- shown on the map or the ,table?

4

7. Locate the Southern Plains region in the firSt col-umn. Now, point to. the same region on the mat) above:What was the largest tribe in' at region?(Commanche)

8. How manl', different characteristics are given to youfor eachof the ten regions in column one? (Sixcharaoteristics beginning with the date .of the firstEuropean contact and ending with the largest tribein the regi

00202

lY

o-

189 I

9. Is each. region listed in the table represented onthe map above? (Yes)

10. Hourare Figure 17 and Figure 18 related-to oneanother? t(Figure 17 shows the ,disVibution ofthose regions gi/en in Figure 18)

11. What was the earliest date of European Contact?(1600) What was the latest' date given in Figure 18?(1845) Where did yOu lock to find out the answerto the question? (Looking down the second column)

I

-.0

12. Which of the columns in Figure 18 are totaled *Stthe bottom of the table?. (Columns Three and Foun)Which total is greatei? .(Number of Indians at theTime of Contact)What is the difference between these two collihns?

' (583,000)What does this number, 583,000' meari? (583,000 In-dians died between 1600 and 1907)

176

00203

v

4

.4*

a

A

V

APPEND' E

ti

%-r

Geogrgphy Achiemerrientjosttest'

z

2

a

(

A

190

00204

O

k

Q

CV

fl

191

Appenddx.E gi'Ves the geography achievement posttest

used in this study. The 50-item posttest was developed by,

J. R. Dale in 1972; the reference to the Dale Study followq:

Dale, J. R. An analysis of the effects onachievement using the forced inferentialresponse made in an intermediate grade popu-lation geography unit. 'Unpublished doctoraldissertation,,University of Georgia, 1972.

ar

r.

I.

0

00205

so

Iti

192

FINAL TEST FOR UNIT"POPULATION GROWTH IN THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO"

.DIRECTIONS: SELECT THE ANSWER WHICH BEST COMPLETES THE.FOLLOWING SENTENCES. PLACE AN (X) IN THAT SQUARE ON YOURANSWER SHEET WHICH CORtESPONDS TO THE ANSWER YOU SELECTED.

1. Before 1500 the density of Iddia population in theUnited States was

1. far greater than in Mexico;2. only slightly greater than in Mexico.

/ 3. about the,same as in Mexico.4. 'less than in Mexico;

c

2. Most of the Indian groups that lived in southern andCentral Mexico in 1500 produced their food by

1. hunting animals like deer and buffalo.2. gathering seeds and wild fruits.3.- farming crops' such as maize, beans, *rid' squash.4. fishing for trout, salmon, and tuna.'

3. The greatest killer of Indians in both MexicO and theUnited States was the

1. bullets from the White man's guns.2.'. forcing'of Indians to work in gold and silver

mines.3. diseases brought to the New World from Europe

and Africa.4. forcing,Indians towork on plantations.

4. The major cause for the low rate of immigration to.Mexico between 1810 and 1920 was that

1. Mexico was involved in many foreign and civilwars during this period.

2. Mexico was already overpopulated in 1810.3. diseases made Mexico very unsafe during this

period.4. the government stopped all immigration to

Mexico after 1810.

5. The total population of Mexico in 1971 was flout1. 12 million.2. 52 million.3. 72 million.4. 102 million.

6.- Since 1930 Mexico has gime through a peri d of1. war and rapid population growth.2. war and slow population growth.3.' peace and rapid population growth.4. peace and slow population growth.

00206.4

7. The major reason for Mexico's1930 has been

1. a great decrease in the2. a great increasein the3. a great decrease in the4. a great increase in the

193

population growth since

birth rate.-death rate.death. rate. -

number of inimigrants.O

8. A migrant who moves oit of a country is called an1. internal migrant.2. internal emigrant.3. immigrant:4. _emigrant.

9., The parts of a country where most of the people maketheir living by fishing, farming, and mining arecalled

1. citir areas..2. urban areas.3. suburban areas.4. rural areas.

10. Most of Mexico's major urban places are lbcated1. along the sho;es of the Pacific Ocean.2. along the shores of the Gulf of Mexico.3. along Mexico's,southern border with Guatemala.4. at inland sites in the central and southern

part of the country.

11. 1 a larger part of a country's population starts tolive and work in urban areas, we can expect the %.

country's,l. death rate2. birth rate

, 3.- birth rate4. birth rate

12. Three EuropeanNorth American

to rise.to stay the same.to decline.to rise.

countries that established colonies ineast of the Mississippi River were

1. ,England, Ireland, and Germany.2. England, Spain,,and Mexico.3. England, France, and Ireland.4. England, Spain, ,and France.

:13., The major reason the United States government takesa census of the population is to

1. determine the size of the U.S. population.2. determine the amount of taxes each citizen

must pay.3. decide the. number of senators each state will

have in the U.S. Senate.4. decide the number of representatives each state

will have in the House of Representatives.

00201

r

14. The birth rate, death rate, and migration rate arecalled population

1. effects.2. caupes.3;44 bombs.

15. A shortage1. pull2. push3. pushA. pull

a.

of foqd and a 16ck of jobs will*immigrants into a country. 4

emigrants out of a country.immigrants into a country.emigrants out of a country.

16.. Befo;e:1860 most of the immigrants that came toUnited States came from the countries of

1. Englapd, Ireland, and Germany.2: Spain,: France, and Italy.3. Hungary, Italy, and'Poland.4. Canada and,Mexico.,

194

the

17. In 1965 most of the immigrants that came to theUnited States came from '

1. .England, Ireland, and Germany.2. Mexico and Canada.3. Hungary, Italy, and Poland.4. England, Prance and Spain.

18. The ,great increase:of the United States birth rateafter the end of World War II is called the

1. Great Depression.2. Population explosion.3. Baby Boom.4. Cold War.

19. Since 1920 the United States1. dgath rate has declined sharply.2. birth rate has stayed about the same.3. birthrate has declined sharply.4. /birth rate has moved down up, and'down again.

20. The most important type.of United States internalmigration that hap occurred since 1900 has been

1'. urban to rural..2. cities to farms.3. rural to urban.4. suburban to urban.

21. Since 1940 many Americans have migrated from1. cities to suburbs.-2. cities to farms.3. subtrbs to cities:4. suburbs to farms.

00208.

4

The greatest number of Mexican Americans living inUnited States today live in the

1. southeastern part of the country..2. northeastern part of the country.3., northwestern part of the country.4. southwetern part of the country.'

23. The .1970 census showed that1. all states were not growing at the same rate.2. all states were growing at the dame rate.3. some states were adding large numbers to their

populations and none were losing population.A. more states were losing population than were

gaining population.

24. Since 1910 there has been strong migration of1. bid people from Plo ida to New York.2. Blacks from the southern cities to the northern

cities.

195

3. Whites from California to Vebraska.and Oklahoma.4. 'Mexican Ameiicans from Ontana to New Mexico.

25. In the United States the area of highest populationdensity runs from

1. Chicago to Los Angeles.2. ,E1 Paso to. kliartij.3. Boston to Washington.d. Washington to' Miami.

26. In 1971 the United States had a :total population ofabout.

1. 58 million.2. 108 million.3. 208 million.4. 408 million.

27. rn.1971 the Mexican population1. growipg at a slower rate.

population.2. groWing at a faster rate

populatiori.3. growing at the same rate

population.4. not growing at all.

wasthin the United States

than,the United Stateb

as the. United States

28. In 1971 the average age of the United States popu-lation was.

1. older than the average age of the Mexicanpoptaation.

2. about the 'same as the average age of theMexican population.

00209

Sr/

11.

196

3. four times as large as the.Mexican population.4. eight times as large as the Mexican population.

29. About 10 out of every 100 people in the UnitedStatep are

1. Mestizos.2. Whites.3, Blacki.4. Mexicdh Americans.

30. Over 1/2 of the people in Mexico are1. Spanish.2. Mestizos.3. Blacks.-4. Isnd,i ans.

31. The int duction of modern medicine and improvementsin sanitation in- many of the underdeveloped nationsof the word has caused a rapid

1. increase in the birth rates.2 decrease in the birth rates. oe

3. increase'in the death rates.4. decrease in the death rates

32. By the year,2000 some demographers expect the U.S.population to be about -

1. the same eize as thejlexidan population.twice as large as the Mexican population.

3. four times as large as the Mexican population.4. eight times as large as the MeXican population,

33. In 1971 Mexico's largest urban place was1. Mexico City.2. Tampico.3. Ciudad Juarez.4. Tijuana.

34. Some river valleys were good sites of early settle-ments because they

1. were the homes of only friendly Indians.2. had many valuable minerals.

pidvided good soils' and easy transportation.4. we free of diseases an&insects.

35, Between ths years 1790 and 1860 most American fami-lies had

1. no children.2. abott one child,3. about three children.4. five or more children.

00210

A

197

36. The population of the United States in 1971 was1. smaller than the Mexican population.2% about the same size as the Mexican population.3. about twice as large as.the Mexican population..4. about four times as large as the M'exican popu-

lation.

31. The U. S. Constitution states that a census of thepopulation must be taken every 4

1. year.2. 5 years.3. 10 years.4. 20 years.

38. The number of wohen 0.4ek 65 years old in the UnitedState's is.

1. less than the number of men over 65.2. about the same as the number of men over 65.3. far less than the number of men over 65.4. greateethan the dumber'of men over 65.

39. Many of. the coin tries that are taking their firststeps toward modernization have°,high birth rates andlow ,death rates. :This means that\ they will likelyhave

1. high.

growth rates.2. low growth rates.3.? growth rates that are slowing down.4. little 16r no growth.

40% A couhiry with a large part of its population under15 years old is 'kely to have

1. high grow rate.2. high de rate.3. low bir rate.4. low growth rate.

-, P41. Many of the more modern nations of the world, likeSweden, Japan, and the United States, have

I. low birth rates and low death rates.2. low birth rates and high death°rates.3. high birth rates and low death rates.4. high birth rates and high death rates.

42. A hap of population density hows the1. total population' of a ountry.

nUhber.pf people, living in each state.3: average number of people for each square mile.

number of'square miles in a country..

6

00211

rf

a

tIP

Population PyramidCountry "A"

Males

198

.Population PyramidCountry "B"

'TO

gr.?E:Population

Over 65

Females

PopuldtionUnder 15

MMUMMWOOMM Ni§

WWNMMINIMMOMOMININV&WKWWWWONSW

M9aes Females

43. .The part of the population.under'l years old is

1. grin Country "A" than Country "B".

-2. m in Country "A" as. in- Country "Bu.

3. the. same in Country "B" aein Country "A".4. less in Country "A"t7than in Codntry

44. The birth rate 'in Country*"B".is likely to be-

1.. much lower than in Country "A".2. only slightly lower tham-AntCountry) "A".

3. about the same as in. Country "A". ,

4. mu0 higher than in Country "A".-

45. The part of the population over 65,years old is1. °greater in Country "A" than, in Country "8".

the same in Country "A" as in Country "B".

3. the same ix Country "B" as in Country "A".4.: less in Country "A" than in. Country "B".

46. The government of,Country "B" wouldihalid to be more

concerned with t .

1. building old age homes.2: providing hospitals for old people.3. building more-schools.4. building hots for newly weds.

F7.

00212

Per 100QPer Year

40

ri

0

sr

10

a

Rate

Death. Rate

Ef

1920 1930 1940 1950- 1960

e

47. Since 1920, the birth and 'death rate1n,this countryhas ,P

1. stayed the same.L2. -dropped slowly. 4",3. increased slimly.4, increased very rapidly.

/48. One 'planation for the'change in the births

and 4ea,thrate of this country between 1940 and 1950 could be

0

-1. a time of pOre.2. good working conditions.3. .wa'r and hard times.4. a great flow of immigrants coming in.

,

49. Population growth jn this country would have been.l the greatest in.

,

.

, 1. 1929. .

.

2. 1939. ,?)

3. 1949.A. 1959.

..,)

.,,

50. 'The birthrate and death rate of this country in 1960would be most like that of ,

1.- the United States'in 1790.2: . Mexico in igio.-3. ilexico in 1930.4. the United States in 1970. c.,

199

t

a

00213

rt '7

291

f2Ap&ndix FPgives'theuAttitude Toward Any Subject

Scale,_ short A form, that is derived from the original long.

form developed by Silence and Remmers in 1934. The refer-

ence to the long form scale, follows:

Silence, E. B., .& Remmers, H.4 H. An experi-,

mental gerieralized master scale: A scale tomeasure attitude toward any school subject.

The reference to the shortened flbrm developed by Remmers is:

Remmers, H. H. 'A scale to measure attitudetowatdany school subject. Lafayette, In-diana: Purdue Research ;Foundation, 1960.

00..5O

a

4:4

%

pOY

J .r. .202

NAME A TEACHER

salooL..

PERIOD ,

.,- .

ATTITUDE TOWARD GEOGRAPHY UNIT

Di REC ,IONS; Please read each of the following state-ments are'fully. Put a check mark ( ) if.you agree withthe ststateyou ma

1.

2.

tement. Put a cross (X) if you disagree with thent. If you simply cannot decide about a statement,place a question mark (?) beside it.,

his unit-is profitable to everybody who.takes it.

No.matter what, happens, this unit always aomes first.

would not advise anyone to talce this unit.3.

4. M parents.never had this unit so I see no meritit.

4V%

5. I m no\interested in this unit.

6. All lessons and all methods used in this unit areclear and definite.

7. .' This unit is a good unit.

8. This nit reminds me of Shakespeare's play-4-"Much. Ado Ito do) About Nothing."

9. I look-forward to this unit with horior.

10. This unit /has' an irresistible attraction fo Pme.

11. 'This unit is a good pastime.,

12. This unit will benefit'only the brighter st dents.,

13. I .don't believe this unit will do anybody any harm.

14. I haven't any definite like or dislike fof this init.

15. This unit is a waste of time.

16. I am willing to spend my time studying this unit.

17. Arq student who takes this unit.is bound to bebenefited.

00216kl>

t-

0

a

a

APPENDIX q

-Biblio4raphy of Mastery Leaning Studies

at the College Level

t.

V

a.

203

00217

4.4

BIBLIOGRAPHY

egAirasian, P. W: An ap lication of a modified versi on-of

John Carroll's mod 1 of school learning. UnpublishedMaster's thesis;,U iversity of Chicago, 1967.

"-

.

'Austin, S. M. and. Gilbe t K. E. -Student performance in a-Kel).er,pi,an course "introductory electricity andmagnetism. Mimeographed manuscriptoMichigan StateUniversity, Cyclotron Labor4tory, undated.

Behr, M..J. A studysof interactions between struCture-Of-intellecifactors and two methods of presenting con-cepts of modulus seven arithmetic. Unpublished doc-toral dissertation( Fl4ida StateTniversity, 1967.

.

Biehler, R. F. A first attempt at a learning for mastery. approach. EducationafPsfchologist, 7 (1970), 7-9.

Born, D. G. Instruction manual for the development of .aperqpnality instruction. Center to Improve Learningand Instruction, University of Utah, 1971.

Born, D. G. and Herbert, E. W. A further study of person-alized instruction for students in a large universityclass. .journalof .Experimental Psychology, 40 (1971).

Collins, K. M. A strategy for masterTlearning in freshmanmathematics. Unpublished -study, Purdue University,Division of Mathematical. Sciences, 1969.

,'Corey, J. R., McMichael, J. S., and Tremont,, P. J. Long-term effects of personalized instruction in an introductory psychology course. Paper presented at theannual meeting oflthe_Eastern Psychological Associa-tion, Atlantic City, New Jersey; 1972.

,

Corey, J. R., Valente, RI. G., and Shamow, N. K. The reten-elon of material learned in a personalized introducto-ry psychology course. 10.meographed manuscript, C. W.Post College of Long Island University, 1971.

00.

Ferster, C. Individual instruction in a large introductorycourse. The Psychological Record, 18 (1968), 521-532.

a

At)

r .*1 205

Fletcher; 0; J.,and Tyler, ,D. E. Teaching veterinary path-. ology by autotutorial and learning for mastery methods.I

Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Assocation,161 (1972), 65-70. J

4t, \ ..

0

Findley4. W. G. A comprehensive plan for reorganizing,edqca-tion in these United.States 'now. Educational Horizons',50 (1972), 167-175.,

Gallup, H. F. The introductorypsychology course at Lafa-. .

, yette College, Easton, Pennsylvania: A descriptionAd tentative evaluation. paper presented at the Mid-

'=.,east Psychological Association Meeting, April, 1969.

Gentile, J. R. A mastery strategy for introductory educa-'tional psychology. Unpublished materials, State Uni-versity of New York at Buffalo, Department,of Educa-.tional Psychology, 1970. tbi

Green, Ben-A. A self-paced course in freshman physics.Unpublished paper, Massachusetts Institute of Technol-ogy, Education Research Center, 1969.

Hapkiewicz, W. G. Ma'stery learning options in teachingeducational psychology. Mimeographed manuscript,Michigan State University, 1971.-

HarriSberger, Lee. Self-paced individually prescribedn-structiot. Engineering Education, 61 (1971), 508 -510.;

Healey, J. R.,and Stephenson, L. Ke Unit mastery learningin an introductory geography course. The Journal ofGeography, 74,(January 1975), 25-31.

'"""

Hoberock, L. L. PersOnalized instruction in mechanicalengineering. Engineering Education, 61 .(1971), 506 -7._

Keller, F. S. Goodbye, teacher. . . . Journal of AppliedBeha/ioral Analysis (1968), 79-89.

Koen, B. V., Self-paced instruction for engineering stu-. .dents. Engineering, Education, 60 (1970), 735-736.

Lawler, R. IC, Dick, W., and Riser, M. Mastery learningand remedial prescriptions in computer-managed in-struction. Journal of Experimental Education, 43(1974), 45.

Lloyd, K. E.,and Knutzen, N. A self-paced programed under-graduate course in the experimental analysis,,of be-havior. Journal of. Applied Behavioral Analysis, 2

- (1969), 125-133.

00219

206

Mayo, S. T., Hunt, R. C., and Tremmq1, F. A mastery ap-proach to the evaluation of learning statistics:.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NationalCouncil on Measurement in Education, Chicago, Illinois,1968.

Merrill, M. D., Barton, K., and Wood, L. E. Specific re-view in learning a hierarchical imaginary science.Journal of Educational Psychology, 61 (1970), 102-109.

Moore, J. W., Mahan, J. M., and Ritts, C. A. An evaluationof the continuous progress concept of instruction withuniversity students. Paper presented at the 'annualmeeting of the American Educational Research Associa-tion, Chicago, Illinois, 968.

Myers, R. A study of mastery and non-mastery in an intro-ductory geography Course. _Unpublished doctoral dis-sertation, University ofGeorgia, 1975 (in process).

Myers, W. A. Operant learning principles a plied to teach-ing introductory statistics. Journal of AppliedBehavioral Analysis, 3 (1970), 881 -892.

W.

Sena, G., Hopkins, B.'L.and Hursh, D. E., The effects of,,study questions and grades on student test performancein a college course. Mimeographed manuscript, Depart-ilkent of Human Development, University of Kansas, 1972.

Shepp%ard, W. C., and MacDermot, H. J. Design and evaluationof a programed course in introductory. psychology.Journal of Applied Analysis, 3 (1970), 5-11.

Sherman, J. G. Application of reinforcement principles toa college course. Paper presented at the annual meet-ing of the American Educational Research Association,New York, 1967.

Sjogren, D. D. Achievement as a function of study time.American Educational Research Journal, 4 (1967), 337-344.

Postlewait, S.-N., Novak, J. D., and Murray, H. An inte-grated experience approach to learning With emphasison independent study, Minneapolis: Burgess Publish-ing Company, 1964.

Tierney, M. L. A comparison of feedback/correction pro-cedures used in mastery learning strategies. Un-published Master's thesis, University of California,Santa Barbara, 1973.

09220

4

207

Weiser, J. R., Lamar, Ci H., and Wi/sman, N. J. An exem-'plary ppogram in comparative anatomy utilizing learn-ting for mastery minicourses and multi-media instruc-tion. British Journal of Medical .Association (1972).

00221

a

t

0

APPENDIX II

(0

Request for Authorization toConduct Research in the

El Paso .PUbli-c Sotto° ls

4

208

002227

c

O

209

EL PASO VUM/Ite UCCOOLSDepartment of Research

ItQUEGT YCR AWECRIU.ATIONTO CaNiiUCT OECEARCa IN THE Et PACO TUCLIO. =pas

AIL requests from students did,faculty.persoancl at the University of Texas at El Faso

should be submitted to tte Office of the DO3Q, School %f Education, at the

University. Other requ its should be sent to the Director of Research andEvat ation, El Paso Public Seteota

t. Naze of person initiating request Gloria Contreras

Telephone No.' 49 Mdress 00C402

identify Znstruotor, Couree,Title, and No. if 'research is Untveralty related

A dissertation in ,nrt,,..:iAlEttlfelUr-.tofer,P.Dr. Marie:: a. Rice, major professor, Univerofty of Georqza

2. Name(s) of indpal(s) expected to he personally involved in the coaduct of, the

research Gloria Centre 39 d etern1 arlidato Poeitioa or Title Efasarajajatztt

Ad

3. Title of Research Project The RffectR PrAter M.iftmczzmItsujiati.meat, Attitude, RetenUca, aru1 Learning Time of Eleventh Grade Students

4. Nature of the project. -Wive a brief-,outtine of the purpose, method, and general

plan :Df investigation on not moss than two pages. Attach to this form.)

5. Colleetion of data. (Describe specifically the procedures to be used in the

collection of data on not more thanrwo pageV. Attach to this form.) Give

beginning and'ending dates of this procedure.

6. Test questionnaire or otherinstiuments to be used. (Give name; attach sample,

and give 4atei; when you expect to be in each school where the inatrumentAs to

be used.)

7. Schools or Departmentsfrom which informationis to be collected

(List by name if known)

.LEleoatt.2cia31405ng.

Students Involved

(Indicate specificallyhow subjects will beselected)

Teachers or other schoolemployees If

Grade Level Number Grade Level Number

=1EMZ121MilE=1 =.=2.1;Sil=c..

8. Date and method whereby findings will be made available to the El Paso Public

8/74

Schools A co of the diesettLition will be rovided

1/20/75

Date

b rtu. uot 1975A

is J4471r.,, ,:

4r3kARCH

8/9S

. 7

(Signature of 1 (above

AUTHORIZED:Director of Research

Date:

00223 ,

4. Nature of the ProjeOt,

TUC EITECT3 GE VARIOUS CR/TERIGN AsTnnyLEysul eN actinvEntm, ATTITUDE, LETENTI41Mb LEARNING TIM OF MENU! GRADE ETUDE=

210

alluse, The purpose of this study is to determine the effects of three

Criterion mastery /evels (90, 80, and 70 per cent) emachietement,.attitude,

retention, and time need'id to leain-byj seventh grade students using a geo-

graphy unit of instructi6.I

Mastery learning, whether group bathed= se1f7paced, is. a teachlug.:

strategy utilin,ing a sequential deoign4vhereby-each.ocgment, containing4 .

specific instructional objectives; is to be mastered before instructicnobegins

4

en the next 'segment. Operationally, a student must achieve every'pegment

Of the unit ter a pre'-serzilastery performance level. This level represents.

,,

4proportion of correct responses, that is, 90 per cent, 00 per cent,..-and 70 ._

. r,1

percent correct. A feedback/correction .component and the allocation of4, , :

sUfficienttime to study.thould theoretically enable most Students to

achieve criterion mastery performance,

Treatment Materials. Treatment materials'for this study will consist

of a FIRM geography Wit, Regulation Growth in the United'States and Mexico:

FIRM is an acronym fOr the Forced inferential Response Mode, a Self-instruction-.

al text which uses incomplete sentence stems to forge a student to derive

information from a data base in order to construct a series of sequential

responses. When correctly completed, the stems and the responses compoqe

a logical narrative which interprets information contained in the data

base, that is, a map, a chart, a graph, or a table.

The unit is divided into three parts. Part I contains 16 different data

base figures, Part II contains 30 different dlta base figures, and Part III'0

contains 7 data base figures. Sentence stems from each data base fiOre

00224

enI

211,

4

must he answered cctrect,y to the; 90030, or 70 per 'cent criterion levels

before a student can proceed to the next data base figure. The review

tests at the end of each part trust alsd,he achieved to a given criterion

D .

lave% before proceeding to the next part.

g Failure to achieve a prescribed criterion level will require a feed-

back learning corrective whbreby the teacher directs a student to the section

within a segment where learning deficiencies,occur. Otiter corrective proceduresI-

will include. 11 group discussions, tutoring by peers who have attainedo

criterion mastery, or teacher - student tutoring.

A final evaluation will be administered to,all students.upon completion

of the unit as an end-of-sequence .appraisement of unit objectives. The

,.--"''

enatsummative test and three review tests at'the end of each major part, .

° t

Will be teacher scored; other segments wilkie student scored with general. ,

teacher supervision..

Teacher Prepaz2.titL. T s willnee with the researcher on February

27, 1975 from 8:30. to 11:30 a. m. ,for purposes of learning 11basic concepts

of demography, 2) basic knowledge.concerning pops ation change in Mexico anda

the United States, 31 basic skills in map and graph analysis, and 4) basic

procedures for a mastery learning strategy.

Teacher participants will be provided with a set of materials Population

Growth in the United States and Mexico. They will be demonstrated a guide' --,

'and sequence of map -graph analysis and then take turns practicing individually

a replication of -the model.

An'alternative to the proposed in- ser4ice workshop will consist of the

1

resedicher meeting with each teacher onnjan individual basis. Written in-

strubtions wilt be prbyided, discussed, and clarified.

00225

C "

0

0.

212D.

. Collection of Data

Duration of the Study. The proposed study is a short-term study that

.-will extend over a period of approximately three weeks. A vocabulary test

will be given-prior to treatment in. order to determine two vocabulary'

levels--above grade 1011 and below grade level. Approximately three. .

weeks will be allowed for the treatment, including tins.tegUired to

administer the formative tests and employ the correction/feedback procedures

of a mastery strategy. One day will be msg43'toadministec the-summative

posttest and attitude scale, A delayed posttest will be administered three

weeks, after the-treatment ends. The delayed posttest will measure the degree

of retention evidenced oincethe posttest. (See next page, chart, for,

data Collection schedule)

Cr

'14

0'

o

00226

C.*

0

Tentative Date for

AdminiStration

1.

Feb. 27, 1975

2. Feb. 27, 1975

3.

Feb. 24 or 25

(at teachers'

venience)

or 26

can-

4.

March 3, 1775

toMarch 20, 1975

(classes may finish

unit sooner)

March 21, 1975

5: 6.. April 11,171975

DATA, .COLLECTION

Procedures

Rationale

Teachers receive materials. and

_written instructions for mastery

learning procedure

7.

*Randomly assign olasses'tO

treatment groups.

Teachers administer 17 minute

vocabulary. section of the Iowa

Tests of Basic Skills;

Forms

5 and 6

.

Glasses begin unit of

instruction

Summative test'and attitude

scale are administered.

Ad

ministration time is one

:

class period.

Summative test re-,administered.

.Administration time is one

class period.

rvj

Experimental design requires that instructions

to teachers be uniform

4.

0

Requirement of experimental, design

,Knowledge of word meaning correlates highly both

with ability to read and to achieve in school.

subjects.

By blocking on the knowledge Of word

meaning variableeto determine high, medium, and

low ability groups;. the researcher can observe

the efficiency of the mastery procedures with

Astudents of varying aptitude, especially low

. aptitude students.

a

4

To determine the effects on achievement and

attitude of students achieving te5 the 70,

80, and 90 per cent criterion levels'

To test the effectscd" retention oftudents

achieving to the 70, 30` and 90 per.cent

criterion levels

S.

1

Dta

S1-

1s.

0

7. n

0

School ofeacher

Crosby Aune

White Gemersell

Guillen Payne

CanyonHills

Hendersbn

0

Pope

00229

214

Grade. .

Level110. ofClasses

Approx.irate No.

of students

7 6 4.80

7 7 210

2 60

7 3 90

6 , 16Q

24 720

ti

APPENDIX

.

Time Table for Pilot and, Experimental

I

Study

215

00229

J .

TIME TABLE FOR PiLOT AND EXPERIMENTAL

STUDY

'Date

February 2, 1975

February

February

February

PrOcedure

216

Pilot classes randomly'assigned totreatment groups. .

1975 Pilot treatment began: Instructionsgiven to pupils and 17 minute vocabu-lary

.

test administered.

1975 Pilot orpsses Pew unit of instruction.

1975 SummativktestAnd a itude scale ad-ministered-vto 'lot classes.Teachers ree4i e:c1 u it text and answerbooklet.

Februarr,27, 1975

'March 3, 1975

March 21, 1975

April 11, 1975'

Orientation meeting wi h teachers par-ticipating in the final study andclasses-randomly Assigned to treatment.

Treatment began: -instructions given topupils and 17 minute vocabulary testadministered.

Summative test and attitude scale ad-.

ministered.

Delayed posttest administered.

00230A